《民法典》视域下自甘风险之法律效果的范式选择及教义学构造  

The Paradigm Choice and Doctrinal Construction of the Legal Effect of Self-willing Risk in Civil Code

作　　者：曹舒然 Cao Shuran

机构地区：[1]北京大学法学院

出　　处：《中山大学法律评论》2022年第2期220-244,共25页Sun Yatsen University Law Review

基　　金：国家社科基金后期项目“传统中国软暴力法律问题研究”(19FFXB076)的资助

摘　　要：《民法典》自甘风险条款所规定的法律效果同以往实务做法存在明显冲突,为求准确适用,有必要对其背后反映出的学理问题作深入探讨。从比较法来看,自甘风险制度背后存在两种范式:一是以受害人意思为依据的权利处分范式,对应免责效果;二是以受害人的可归责性为依据的损害分配范式,对应过失相抵效果。相较而言,权利处分范式未能充分厘清受害人接受风险的意思与接受损害的意思之间的差异,不当扩大了免责的范围;而损害分配范式则忽视了权利处分思想的价值及其运用。通过对两种范式加以修正与重构,得以活动中的固有风险为标准,将作为固有风险的加害行为交由权利处分范式调整,而将作为外部风险的加害行为交由损害分配范式调整。同时,当加害行为属于固有风险,但受害人欠缺接受风险的意思时,应为后者拟制出该意思,进而允许加害人依权利处分范式而免责。《民法典》中的自甘风险条款以免责为其效果,实质上采纳了权利处分范式的内容,因而仅得适用于权利处分型自甘风险,而对于损害分配型自甘风险则应交由过失相抵条款调整。在自甘风险主体的界定问题上,应将“自愿参加者”解释为自主进入活动空间之人,从而将那些虽未实际接受风险,但因文体活动中的固有风险而受伤之人一同包含在内。The legal effect stipulated by the voluntary risk clause in the Civil Code is obviously in conflict with the previous practice.In order to apply it accurately,it is necessary to deeply discuss the theoretical problems behind it.From the perspective of comparative law,there are two paradigms behind the voluntary risk system.One is the right punishment paradigm based on the victim’s intention,which corresponds to the exemption effect;the second is the damage distribution paradigm based on the imputability of the victim,which corresponds to the effect of negligence offsetting.Comparatively speaking,the paradigm of right punishment fails to fully clarify the difference between the victim’s intention of accepting risks and the intention of accepting damages,and inappropriately expands the scope of exemption.However,the damage distribution paradigm ignores the value and application of the idea of right punishment.By revising and reconstructing the two paradigms,the inherent risks in activities can be taken as the standard,and the harmful behavior as the inherent risks can be adjusted by the right punishment paradigm,while the harmful behavior as the external risks can be adjusted by the damage distribution paradigm.At the same time,when the injuring behavior is an inherent risk,but the victim lacks the meaning of accepting the risk,the latter should formulate the meaning,and then allow the offender to be exempted from liability according to the right punishment paradigm.The voluntary risk clause in the Civil Code takes exemption as its effect and essentially adopts the content of the right punishment paradigm,so it can only be applied to the voluntary risk of right punishment,while the voluntary risk of damage distribution should be adjusted by the negligence offset clause.On the definition of the subject of voluntary risk,“voluntary participants”should be interpreted as those who enter the activity space on their own,so as to include those who are injured due to the inherent risks in cultural and sports activi

关 键 词：自甘风险 受害人同意 过失相抵 损害分配 参加者 

分 类 号：D923[政治法律—民商法学]