数人侵权体系中原因力理论定位之探讨  

Reorientation of Causative Potency Under Mutiple Tort System

作　　者：林承铎[1] 阎语 

机构地区：[1]中国人民大学国际学院,北京100872 [2]荷兰马斯特里赫特大学Metro研究中心

出　　处：《内蒙古大学学报（哲学社会科学版）》2015年第1期80-85,共6页Journal of Inner Mongolia University(Philosophy and Social Sciences)

基　　金：北京市哲学社会科学"十二五"规划项目青年项目(项目批准号:12FXC035)

摘　　要：原因力作为我国数人侵权体系因果关系认定及责任分担的特色规则,在现有定位上体现出了事实/法律因果关系理论的双重属性。但这种综合式的定位也带来了一些问题:首先,原因力理论的实质与内涵并不明确;其次,在确定数人侵权责任分担中所起的作用也并不明确。一方面,原因力理论在事实因果关系层面上与"实质因素说"关系具有可对比性;另一方面,其在法律因果关系层面与"比较过失说"也存在对比性。因此,把《欧洲侵权法原则》与我国《侵权责任法》进行综合对比后可以发现,我国《侵权责任法》因果关系体系未区分事实因果关系及法律因果关系。这种混同使得原因力理论在实际运用中间接等同于因果关系理论。因此,数人侵权中的原因力在事实因果关系层面并无存在价值,在法律因果关系层面的作用也应做限缩解释。Causative potency as the unique Chinese fashion theory for the determination of causation and the apportionment of liability in multiple injurers＇ cases shows a dual attribute of ＂cause in fact＂and ＂cause in legal＂. This synthetical concept of causative potency brings some problems： firstly,the essence and contents of this concept are vague; Secondly,the function of causative potency in the determination of apportionment of liability is also unclear. Therefore,this article starts with the comparative study of the causative potency and ＂substantial factor theory＂in ＂cause in fact＂perspective together with ＂comparative negligence＂and relevant rules in ＂Principles of European Tort Law＂in the light of ＂cause in legal＂,considering the main reason for the mentioned problems is that the Chinese tort law does not distinguish ＂cause in fact＂from ＂cause in legal＂,which mix the causative potency with causation in case of multiple tort cases. Thus,as a Chinese fashion theory in multiple tort cases,causative potency has no value in the ＂cause in fact＂aspect. Moreover,the role of causative potency in the respect of ＂cause in legal＂should also be restrictively interpreted.

关 键 词：原因力 实质因素说 比较过失说 欧洲侵权法原则 限缩解释 

分 类 号：D923[政治法律—民商法学]