摘要
违法性反映出法秩序对于损害事故能否获得赔偿的选择性倾向,在本质上成为侵权法为民事主体设定的行为标准。我国过错侵权责任三要件说与四要件说争论的焦点在于违法性能否成为过错责任成立的构成要件。由于法律传统、司法体制与思维习惯等方面的差异,两大法系过错侵权责任在制度变迁过程中形成显性与隐性两种不同的规则违反确认模式,不同模式的形成往往取决于具有地方性的差异化背景因素。在侵权法中引入违反"注意义务"规则,表面上克服了因承认违法性而导致的理论困境,但"注意义务"自身的模糊性和变动性也使侵权责任处于一种不确定状态。在我国侵权法受到大陆法系私法理论与法律制度深刻影响且侵权立法未对违法性做出明确规定的情况下,应当通过司法途径对违法的类型加以规定,进而构建"广义的、显性规则违反确认模式"。
Unlawfulness is standard of behavior which is set up for people and it is the attitude of le- gal order about compensation of the accidents＇ damage. The difference between the theory of three requi- sites and the theory of four requisites is that if unlawfulness is the constitutional requisite of liability based on fault. This difference roots in tradition of law, judiciary and habits of mind in Anglo - American and continental law systems. Because of local and especial elements, validation mode of the breach of rules could be distinguished into dominant and recessive modes in the evolvement of tort law. Application of breach of duty of care could solve the problem apparently but the liability would be uncertain because of mistiness and mobility of the duty of care. Because of influence of theory and institution of civil law and unlawfulness isn＇t prescribed in statute, we should construct dominant mode of the Breach of Rules in broad sense through judicatory.
出处
《社会科学》
CSSCI
北大核心
2012年第8期87-97,共11页
Journal of Social Sciences
基金
上海市哲学社会科学规划青年课题"大规模侵权案件的规制与应对模式研究"(项目编号:2011EFX002)的阶段性成果
关键词
违法性
一般条款
注意义务
规则违反确认模式
Unlawfulness
Commor
Article
Duty of Care
Validation Mode of the Breach of Rules
