作为抗辩事由的原告违法:概念、体系及中国化  

Plaintiff's Illegality As A Plea Instance:Concept,System And Sinicization

作　　者：黄忠[1] 

机构地区：[1]西南政法大学

出　　处：《法学评论》2018年第3期122-133,共12页Law Review

基　　金：国家社科基金项目"民法上的违法处置论:观念澄清与制度完善研究"(11XFX018);西南政法大学青年教师学术创新团队项目的阶段性成果

摘　　要：被告可否以原告违法进行抗辩,进而减轻、甚至免除责任的问题在我国未获关注。在普通法上,原告违法已成为有别于共同过失和自担风险等的一项独立抗辩事由。违法抗辩的适用范围广泛,法律效果也颇为灵活、极具弹性。法、德等国未在法典中明确原告违法的抗辩,而倾向于将其纳入共同过失规则的范畴进行处理。但违法抗辩与共同过失在构成、效果、适用范围和理论基础等方面均有差异,因此,在立法上仍有必要引入独立的违法抗辩规则。违法抗辩的弹性法律效果设计不仅有助于维护公共利益和法律秩序,而且还有助于突破"全赔或全不赔"的局限,具有衡平价值。未来的《侵权责任法》若将原告违法纳入共同过失范畴,则应对共同过失的含义和法效果进行扩张。Whether the fact that the claim arises out of,or is connected to,some illegal activity on the part of the claimant should give rise to a defence in tort has not been paid attention in China.In UK and other countries,the plaintiff＇s illegality has become an independent defence,which is different from contributory negligence and voluntary assumption of risks.The illegality defence in tort is extensive and flexible.In France and Germany,the illegality defence is incorporated into the scope of the contributory negligence in torts law.There are many differences between the illegality defence and the contributory negligence,especially in both composition,effect,scope and policy rationales.The flexible legal effect of illegal defense not only helps to maintain the consistency of public policy and legal order,but also helps to overcome the limitation of＇all or nothing＇in compensation.If we still take the illegality defence into the scope of the contributory negligence in China,the meaning and legal effect of contributory negligence should be expanded in tort law.

关 键 词：原告违法 共同过失 自担风险 责任抗辩 

分 类 号：D923[政治法律—民商法学]