先行行为侵权的侵权责任之省思——以江秋莲诉刘暖曦案为契机  

Review on the Tort Liability Caused by Prior Conduct:Taking the Case of Jiang Qiulian v. Liu Nuanxi as an Example

作　　者：石记伟 SHI Ji-wei

机构地区：[1]南京大学法学院,江苏南京210093

出　　处：《华侨大学学报（哲学社会科学版）》2023年第6期119-131,共13页Journal of Huaqiao University(Philosophy & Social Sciences)

基　　金：国家社会科学基金青年项目“《反外国制裁法》域外效力研究(23CFX071)”。

摘　　要：备受关注的江秋莲诉刘暖曦生命权纠纷案是检讨中国法上先行行为引发的不作为侵权的良好契机。不作为侵权在侵权法中属于例外,原则上不作为侵权与作为侵权具有等值性,但不必过分苛求,司法实务中法官认定不作为侵权责任较轻。不作为侵权中作为义务来源之间的混淆与重叠需厘清,先行行为异于部分民法基本原则、法定义务等来源形式,具有独立存在价值,但其成立需要严格限制,以避免过度限制行为自由。作为义务来源认定上的形式法义务说存在较多问题,并不可采,应该采取形式与实质法义务结合的综合说,探求认定作为义务的实质法律依据。先行行为创设或维持民事权益侵害的紧迫、巨大危险,原则上须具有违法性,例外情况则不要求。先行行为的特性是具有可归责性、损害发生的高概率性,严重依赖损害结果及法官价值判断,同时具有双向限制功能,其应从过错侵权一般条款中进行解释。过失不作为与第三人故意作为结合引发损害之际,应放弃相当因果关系学说之适用,而采取风险降低理论,进行妥当的规范性分析。The highly-profile case of Jiang Qiulian v.Liu Nuanxi over right to life dispute is a good opportunity to review the omission tort caused by prior conduct in Chinese law.The omission tort is an exception in tort law.In principle,there is equivalence between the omission tort and the action tort,but there is no need to be overly demanding.In judicial practice,judges determine that the tort of omission liability is more lenient.The confusion and overlap between the sources of the duty to act in the tort of omission need to be clarified.The prior conduct that is different from some of the basic principles of civil law,statutory duty and other sources,has independent value,but its establishment needs to be strictly limited to avoid excessive restrictions on freedom of conduct.There are many problems in the theory of formal legal duty as a source of duty to act,which cannot be accepted.A comprehensive approach combining formal and substantive legal duty should be adopted to explore the substantive legal basis for determining duty to act.The imminent and big danger of creating and maintaining the infringement of civil rights and interests through prior conduct is illegal in principle,and exceptions are not required.The prior conduct has accountability,high probability of damage occurrence,heavy reliance on the damage result and the judge’s value judgment,as well as a two-way limiting function,which should be explained in the general clause of fault tort.When the combination of negligent omission and intentional act of a third party causes damage,the application of the doctrine of considerable causality should be abandoned and the theory of risk reduction should be adopted for proper normative analysis.

关 键 词：江歌案 不作为侵权 先行行为 因果关系 作为义务 

分 类 号：D913[政治法律—民商法学]