受损型用人者合同责任与侵权责任竞合论

The Research on the Concurrence of Contractual Liability and Tortious Liability of Workplace Owner to Compensate the Injured Employee

《民法典》仅从侵权责任角度规定了受损型用人者责任,明确适用过错责任,这一规定需要从合同责任角度进行反思。从《民法典》第930条可以推知,用人者风险分配型合同责任采无过错责任,并与用人者违约责任产生竞合。无论是用人者风险分配型合同责任,还是用人者违约责任,皆系无过错责任,这与受损型用人者过错侵权责任发生了抵牾。解释论层面下合同责任之无过错责任与侵权责任之过错责任各有其法理基础、历史背景与配置逻辑,从单一视角来看,二者都具有一定的合理性。在受损型用人者合同责任与侵权责任发生竞合的情况下,几种调整路径各有不同优势,解释论上应肯定几者的竞合。立法论上,受损型用人者合同责任与侵权责任规则应予统一。

The Civil Code only provides for the workplace owner’s liability to compensate the injured employee from the perspective of tortious liability,which clearly applies the responsibility for fault.This rule requires reflection from the perspective of contractual liability.From Article 930 of the Civil Code,it can be inferred that the risk-allocation contractual liability of the workplace owner shall be subject to no-fault liability and will compete with the workplace owner’s no-fault default liability.Both the workplace owner’s contractual liability of risk distribution and the liability for breach of contract adopt no-fault liability,which is contrary to the tortious liability for fault to compensate the injured employee.At this point,it should be noted that the non-fault liability of contractual liability and the fault liability of tortious liability on an interpretative level have their respective legal bases,historical backgrounds,and logical configuration,and both are reasonably based on a single perspective.When contractual liability and tortious liability to compensate the injured employee competes,several adjustment paths mentioned above have different advantages,and the concurrence of them should be recognized in interpretation theory.In terms of legislation,the rules governing contractual liability and tortious liability to compensate the injured employee should be unified.