全责、免责还是损害分配:故意侵权案件中过失相抵的适用

Malong Whole,Exemption or Allocation of Damage:The Effect of Intent on the Application of Comparative Negligence

加害人和受害人一方或双方存在故意时,能否适用过失相抵存在判断困难。在加害人故意和受害人过失时,根据《民法典》第1173条的表述,应当适用过失相抵。但这否定了《民法典》颁布前排斥过失相抵的态度,没有充足理由,容易造成司法者的困惑。受害人存在故意时,既可适用第1173条减责,又可适用第1174条免责,缺少区分依据。双方均存在故意时是否适用过失相抵缺少法律明确规定,司法实践中也比较混乱。比较法上,从共同过失发展到过失相抵,教义学上的“同种类过错才能相抵”发展出了很多例外,但没有理论能够予以充分解释。法典规则的不同不影响普遍法理的抽象。通过归纳案例可以发现:行为人故意中的预见内容影响了法律适用的结果。一方当事人存在故意时,如果故意的预见内容包含了另一方当事人的过失,应当对损害承担全部责任,排除过失相抵的适用;作为例外,如果一方当事人故意的预见内容不包含另一方当事人的过失,则可以适用过失相抵;双方均存在故意时,如果可以互相预见到对方的行为,能够适用过失相抵。

When one or both of the injurer and the victim have intention,it is doubtful whether the comparative negligence can apply.Under the current system,in cases where the injurer is intentional and the victim is negligent,it is only possible to apply the comparative negligence under Article 1173 of the Civil Code.This attitude contrasts with the pre-Civil Code attitude of rejecting comparative negligence,but without sufficient justification.It tends to the confusion of the judiciary.In cases where the victim is intentional,either Article 1173 can be applied to reduce liability or Article 1174 can be applied to exempt liability,making it difficult to determine the application of the law.There is a lack of clarity in the law when both parties are intentional.A look at comparative law reveals that the doctrine of“only the same kind of fault can adapt comparative negligence”has developed with many exceptions from contributory negligence to the doctrine of comparative negligence but there is not enough theory to explain it.In comparative law,as a principle,if one party’s intention can contain the fault of the other party,it shall bear full responsibility for the damage;as an exception,if the intent of one party does not include the fault of the other party,comparative negligence could be used.Therefore,there are hidden legal loopholes in Article 1173 and 1174 of the Civil Code,which can be filled through purported limitation.