《侵权责任法》第12条之按份责任正当性论证——兼论第12条与第37条第2款的关系  

The Legitimacy of Liability by Shares in Article 12 of Tort Law: Also on the Relationship between Article 12 and Clause 2 of Article 37

作　　者：曹险峰[1] 

机构地区：[1]吉林大学法学院,吉林长春130012

出　　处：《苏州大学学报（哲学社会科学版）》2014年第2期60-68,192,共9页Journal of Soochow University(Philosophy & Social Science Edition)

基　　金：国家社科基金一般项目"侵权责任法总则适用问题研究"(项目编号:11BFX031);教育部人文社会科学重点研究基地项目"侵权责任法的若干疑难问题研究"(项目编号:12JJD820015);吉林大学青年学术领袖培育计划"侵权责任法与民法其他法域的互动与融合"(项目编号:2012FRLX15)的阶段性成果

摘　　要：我国《侵权责任法》第12条从责任形态角度规定了按份责任,这与国外立法例形成鲜明对比。对于第12条规范的类似情形,国外立法例多采连带责任的做法。这种不同,既有我国立法传统、司法实践与理论学说的原因,也有新近立法趋势的印证;既有效地维护了加害人与受害人的利益均衡,又符合单独侵权的逻辑。因此,《侵权责任法》第12条规定按份责任有其正当性基础。《侵权责任法》第37条第2款与第12条存在重合之处,应通过限定补充责任的适用范围,确立按份责任的中心地位,来消除两个法条间的矛盾。Article 12 of China's Tort Law adopts liability by shares in terms of liability form, which is a stark contrast to legislation of foreign countries, where in a case similar to that described by Article 12 joint liability is more likely to be adopted. Such difference can be ascribed to China's unique legislative tradition, judicial practice and theory, and is further proved by the trend of China's legislation. Article 12 keeps a balance between the victim of a tort and the tortfeasor, and conforms to the logic of individual tort. Therefore, there is sufficient legitimacy in Article 12. However, it must be pointed out that there is overlapping between Article 12 and Clause 2 of Article 37, and this overlapping should be eradicated by establishing the central place of liability by shares and by defining the application scope of supplementary liability.

关 键 词：按份责任 连带责任 补充责任 多数人侵权 

分 类 号：DF526[政治法律—民商法学]