重归本源:反思《民法典》时代机动车交通事故责任的归责原则  

Return to the Origin:Liability Determination of Motor Vehicle Accident Tort in the Era of Civil Code

作　　者：张凇纶 ZHANG Songlun

机构地区：[1]广东外语外贸大学土地法制研究院

出　　处：《中国政法大学学报》2022年第3期184-194,共11页Journal Of CUPL

摘　　要：机动车事故侵权与无过错责任的关联,亟待改变:机动车被视为一种危险,这在现代社会已不成立;驾驶人对机动车的积极性管控,也无法适用物之监管人的规则;行人与非机动车驾驶人相比,绝非任何意义上的“弱者”,为保护“弱者”而适用无过错责任同样是不成立的。机动车驾驶人与行人(包括非机动车驾驶人)具有共同利益,亦即道路交通的顺畅性,这是其他无过错责任的双方不存在的情况。对机动车事故侵权的认定应当重回过错责任:以管理性的交通规则作为判断过错的唯一客观标准,而无过错责任仅应适用于机动车因产品故障失控而造成事故的情况。因此《道路交通安全法》第76条亟待改进;在未改之前,应当利用间接故意概念,在适用中扩张该条第1款、并限缩第1款第2项。The relationship between motor vehicle accident tort and no fault liability needs to be changed urgently.The view that motor vehicles are regarded as a kind of danger is no longer tenable in modern society;the driver’s active control over the motor vehicle makes it impossible for the supervisor of the applicable object to determine no fault liability;There is no absolute group distinction between drivers and pedestrians.It is untenable to protect the“weak”and pedestrians,and there is no room for no fault liability.Motor vehicle drivers and pedestrians(including non-motor vehicle drivers)have common interests,that is,the smoothness of road traffic,which does not exist for other parties without fault liability.For this reason,the identification of motor vehicle accident tort should return to fault liability and take traffic rules as the only objective standard to judge fault.No fault liability should only apply to accidents caused by motor vehicles out of control due to product failures.Therefore,Article 76 of the Road Traffic Safety Law needs to be improved urgently;before it is changed,the concept of indirect intent should be used to expand Paragraph 1 and limit item 2 of Paragraph 1 in the application of this article.

关 键 词：机动车事故侵权 无过错责任 物之监管人 交通的顺畅性 

分 类 号：D923[政治法律—民商法学]