文体活动自甘风险条款中“重大过失”的识别——基于《民法典》实施后一年内96份司法裁判文书的实证分析  

Identification of“Gross Negligence”in Voluntary Risk Clause:An Empirical Analysis Based on 96 Judicial Awards within One Year after Implementation of Civil Code

作　　者：熊瑛子[1] 贺清 XIONG Yingzi;HE Qing(School of P.E.,Soochow Univ.,Suzhou 215021,China)

机构地区：[1]苏州大学体育学院,江苏苏州215021

出　　处：《武汉体育学院学报》2023年第1期50-57,共8页Journal of Wuhan Sports University

基　　金：国家社会科学基金青年项目(20CTY010)。

摘　　要：《民法典》第1176条首次在我国基本法中明确参加文体活动的自甘风险原则。重大过失系自甘风险条款适用的一项例外,经常被当事人作为抗辩理由而引用。然而,司法实践中,对重大过失的判断存在标准模糊、同类犯规未得到同等对待等情况。依据文义解释、目的解释、历史解释等法律解释方法进行剖析,得出:重大过失系隶属于过失的一个亚类,与“故意”存在明显区别;重大过失并非等同于“严重犯规”行为;判断重大过失过程中,需要考虑当事人的运动经验和所从事项目的惯例和特点。未来的司法实践中,厘清注意义务的范围是判断重大过失的前提;判断重大过失时应当具体项目具体对待;比赛规则类型化是判断“重大过失”的依据,违反技术性规则一般不作重大过失处理。Article 1176 of the Civil Code first clarifies the principle of voluntary risk in participating in cultural and sports activities in the basic laws of China.Gross negligence is an exception to the application of the voluntary risk clause,which is often cited by the parties as a defense.However,in judicial practice,the judgment standard of gross negligence is vague,and similar fouls are not treated equally.According to the principles of literal interpretation,theoretical interpretation and negative interpretation,gross negligence belongs to a subclass of negligence and is different from intention;Gross negligence is not equivalent to a serious foul.In the process of judging gross negligence,consideration should be given to the athletes’sports experience and the basic characteristics of the events they are engaged in.In the future judicial practice,clarifying the category of duty of care is the premise of judging gross negligence.Standardizing the unique standards of different types of projects is the key to judging gross negligence.The classification of competition rules is the basis for judging gross negligence,and violations of technical rules will not be dealt with as gross negligence.

关 键 词：重大过失 注意义务 文义解释 类型化 自甘风险 

分 类 号：G80-05[文化科学—运动人体科学]