见义勇为相对免责之提倡

Advocacy of relative exemption of doing boldly what is righteous

虽然绝对免责的制度设计在一定程度上可以激励社会公众见义勇为,但是也存在种种弊端,须详加反思。从立法上看,我国绝对免责的规范设计在世界范围内实属罕见。司法实践中,法官为应对错综复杂的案件事实,也很难一概予以免责。若诉诸学说,紧急无因管理中管理人存在故意或重大过失时尚应负责,遑论还存在防卫过当和避险过当的矫正机制。故而,见义勇为免责的范围应受到限制。具体路径应有两条:一是严格限定见义勇为的构成要件,如自愿、紧急等,降低法院适用第184条的频率,以实质限缩绝对免责的范围;二是在案件事实亦符合侵权行为或不适法无因管理时,以比例原则为标尺,追究行为人的赔偿责任。总之,相对免责平衡了救助人与受助人之间的利益,符合社会公众朴素的法情感,调和了个体正义与社会正义之间的矛盾与冲突,因此是可行的解释选择。

Although the institutional design of absolute exemption can inspire people to do boldly what is righteous,but there are various disadvantages,which must be reflected in detail.From the perspective of legislation,the normative design of absolute exemption in China is rare in the world.In judicial practice,in order to deal with the complex facts of cases,it is also difficult for judges to exempt without exception.If explained in theory,in emergency management without cause,the manager should be responsible for intentional or gross negligence,let alone there are correction mechanisms of excessive defense and excessive risk avoidance.Therefore,the scope of doing boldly what is righteous should be limited.There should be two specific paths.The first path is to limit the constituent elements of doing boldly what is righteous strictly,such as voluntariness and urgency,etc.and reduce the application frequency of Article 184 of the court,so as to limit the scope of absolute exemption substantially.The second path is when the facts of the case are also in line with the tort or the management of inappropriateness without cause,the compensation liability should be investigated of the actor based on the principle of proportionality.In short,relative exemption balances the interests between the rescuer and the recipient,conforms to the simple legal emotion of the people,and reconciles the contradictions and conflicts between individual justice and social justice.Therefore,it is a feasible choice of interpretation.