论人身损害免责约定
摘要
本文以人身损害免责约定作为分析对象,主要对人身损害免责约定与受害人同意、自甘冒险的关系以及人身损害免责约定的法律调整两个方面进行了研究。
人身损害免责约定,即事前约定,是指当事人之间在损害事故发生前,对将来发生的人身损害免除赔偿责任的约定。人身损害免责约定调整的法理基础即私法自治,否定私法自治的依据在于形式的私法自治违背了其伦理基础和现实基础,以及与公序良俗原则冲突。
关于人身损害免责约定与受害人同意、自甘冒险的关系,作者认为三者是相互独立的范畴。对于人身损害免责约定与受害人同意的关系,目前,理论上有两种不同的观点。一种观点主张人身损害免责约定属于受害人同意的一种类型,另一种观点则认为人身损害免责约定与受害人同意互相独立。本文主张人身损害免责约定与受害人同意是相互独立的。通过比较,作者认为人身损害免责约定是民事行为,体现了当事人分担损害的安排,它不具有排除行为违法性的功能。而受害人同意则属于准法律行为,合法有效的受害人同意具有排除行为违法性的功能。有的学者主张用自甘冒险来解释免责约定,作者认为自甘冒险属于受害人过错范畴,二者之间的区别也是明显的。
本文介绍了国内外对该问题的立法情况和理论研究成果,对单一处理方式的理论根据进行了批判。最后从人身损害免责约定的主体、形式和客体出发,为人身损害免责约定的具体调整提供了思路,并且探讨了其立法技术问题。
As an important legal means of safeguarding existence and dignity of natural person, personal right occupies the most important place in civil rights system. Any property right shall not be prior to personal right. The law forbids any person to willfully violate others’, or even his or her own personal right. As one of civil subjects, natural person is the starting point and ending place of legal values.
As a kind of civil liabilities, personal injury compensation is an important means of protecting personal right of natural person, with recovery, preventive and punitive function and means of protection of other civil liabilities cannot replace its function. However, in complicated real life, stipulation of exemption of personal injury occurs frequently. The realization of the aim of protection values of freedom of contract and personal right depends on how this stipulation is considered and solved in law.
This paper analyzes the stipulation of exemption of personal injury in four parts. The study concentrates on two aspects: the relationship between stipulation of exemption of personal injury and victim consent and assumption of the risk and legal adjustment of stipulation of exemption of personal injury.
The first part defines stipulation of exemption of personal injury. Stipulation of exemption of personal injury, that is beforehand stipulation, refers to the stipulation of exemption of would-be personal injury compensation before the injury accident between the parties concerned happens.
Stipulation of exemption of personal injury, as a contract or clauses of a contract, represents the will of the party concerned. Principle of autonomy of private law shall be the legal foundation of legal adjustment of stipulation of exemption of personal injury.
In period of free capitalism, the western world follows absolute autonomy of private law or concept of free contract. The party concerning the contract is considered as the best judge of his own interests. As monopoly
capitalism came into being, things developed in reverse direction. Too much emphasis on autonomy of private law leads to conflicts with social justice. Things that do not conform to social justice will also not conform to social interests. This is contrary to the imagination of Enlightenment scholars. Too much emphasis on rights frequently leads to situations of anti-justice; too much emphasis on autonomy of private law will lead to power abuse. Power abuse will do harm to other people and the society, so concept of absolute autonomy of private law is adjusted. The so-called autonomy of private law shall within the limitation of law; otherwise, it goes to the opposite side. Modern society makes extensive amendment to autonomy of private law in form. The foundation of negation of autonomy of private law shall be that autonomy of private law in form violates its ethic foundation and real foundation and it conflicts with principle of public order and good morals. The author thinks, the adjustment of stipulation of exemption of personal injury shall still be guided by fundamental principle of autonomy of private law and be dealt with cautiously so that it can conform to principle of modern autonomy of private law. The second part elaborates the first problem, that is, the relationship between the relationship between stipulation of exemption of personal injury and victim consent and assumption of the risk. The author thinks that these three belong to three independent categories. Concerning this problem, there are two different views in theory. The first view considers stipulation of exemption of personal injury as victim consent and the other view considers these two are independent. The author prefers that stipulation of exemption of personal injury and victim are independent. Through comparison, the author considers stipulation of exemption of personal injury as civil act, which demonstrates arrangement that the parties concerned share the injury. It does not have the function of excluding the nature of violation of law of the act. Victim consent belongs to quasi-law act and legitimate and valid victim consent has the function of excluding the nature of violation of law of the act. They are greatly different in content, legal nature, valid elements and legal functions. In nature, victim consent demonstrates that the victim carries out his or her rights. Stipulation of exemption of personal injury must be based
on legal relationship of contract and it is a kind of assumption of the liability of injury compensation. Some scholars propose that stipulation of exemption shall be explained by assumption of the risk, but the author thinks that assumption of the risk is a misconduct of the victim. It cannot negate the nature of violation of law of the inflictor or the existence of offence. There are two causative effects of the existence of assumption of the risk and therefore the injury shall be shared by the parties concerned. In the condition of act of assumption of the risk, there is no meaning connection between the victim, the inflictor and the two parties do not arrive at consent for the injury and the victim does not make any explicit indication. Assumption of the risk shows that the actor neglects his or her own rights, so it belongs to the category of offence of the victim. The distinction between the two is obvious. The third part concerns categorized analysis of stipulation of exemption of personal injury. It analyzes specific demonstrations and legal requirements of stipulation of exemption of personal injury in medical areas and sports areas. The fourth part concentrates on the second problem, that is, legal adjustment of stipulation of exemption of personal injury. This part introduces legislation and theoretical achievements in foreign countries concerning this problem and criticizes theoretical foundation of single way of solution. Civil liability is, in deed, not only compensative, but also punitive. Compensation is the basic function of civil law, while punishment is auxiliary function. In other words, even though serious violation of civil law is not investigated for civil liability, it still can be investigated for administrative liability, or even criminal liability. Punitive function of civil liability is limited. The stipulation exempts personal injury compensation liability. From the aspect of rights, it is right of recourse for personal injury compensation, and right of relief that is derived from personal right. This right shall be called a kind of right of property; therefore, its punitive target is not personal right and it is unreasonable to negate validity of stipulation of exemption of personal injury by the punitive limitation of personal right. Finally, it provides ideas for specific adjustment of stipulation of exemption of personal injury based on subject, form and object of stipulation
of exemption of personal injury and discusses techniques in legislation. The author thinks that general law and special law can be combined. In validity evaluation system, adjustments can be made in way of absolute invalidity or relative invalidity. The party concerned is endowed with right of revocation so that he or she can flexibly choose the way. The judge can be endowed with right of discretion to some extent, so he can flexibly solve some special problems when application of general regulations is against requirements of justices. As a kind of exemption clause, stipulation of exemption of personal injury is contractual act to eliminate debt by consent of the two parties. In this aspect, it is obviously different from victim consent and assumption of the risk. Stipulation of exemption of personal injury concerns core value of personal right, it connects with realization of autonomy of private law and has many representations and extensive existence, so its adjustment shall not be in uniform way and shall be analyzed in detail in academic theory.
人身损害免责约定,即事前约定,是指当事人之间在损害事故发生前,对将来发生的人身损害免除赔偿责任的约定。人身损害免责约定调整的法理基础即私法自治,否定私法自治的依据在于形式的私法自治违背了其伦理基础和现实基础,以及与公序良俗原则冲突。
关于人身损害免责约定与受害人同意、自甘冒险的关系,作者认为三者是相互独立的范畴。对于人身损害免责约定与受害人同意的关系,目前,理论上有两种不同的观点。一种观点主张人身损害免责约定属于受害人同意的一种类型,另一种观点则认为人身损害免责约定与受害人同意互相独立。本文主张人身损害免责约定与受害人同意是相互独立的。通过比较,作者认为人身损害免责约定是民事行为,体现了当事人分担损害的安排,它不具有排除行为违法性的功能。而受害人同意则属于准法律行为,合法有效的受害人同意具有排除行为违法性的功能。有的学者主张用自甘冒险来解释免责约定,作者认为自甘冒险属于受害人过错范畴,二者之间的区别也是明显的。
本文介绍了国内外对该问题的立法情况和理论研究成果,对单一处理方式的理论根据进行了批判。最后从人身损害免责约定的主体、形式和客体出发,为人身损害免责约定的具体调整提供了思路,并且探讨了其立法技术问题。
As an important legal means of safeguarding existence and dignity of natural person, personal right occupies the most important place in civil rights system. Any property right shall not be prior to personal right. The law forbids any person to willfully violate others’, or even his or her own personal right. As one of civil subjects, natural person is the starting point and ending place of legal values.
As a kind of civil liabilities, personal injury compensation is an important means of protecting personal right of natural person, with recovery, preventive and punitive function and means of protection of other civil liabilities cannot replace its function. However, in complicated real life, stipulation of exemption of personal injury occurs frequently. The realization of the aim of protection values of freedom of contract and personal right depends on how this stipulation is considered and solved in law.
This paper analyzes the stipulation of exemption of personal injury in four parts. The study concentrates on two aspects: the relationship between stipulation of exemption of personal injury and victim consent and assumption of the risk and legal adjustment of stipulation of exemption of personal injury.
The first part defines stipulation of exemption of personal injury. Stipulation of exemption of personal injury, that is beforehand stipulation, refers to the stipulation of exemption of would-be personal injury compensation before the injury accident between the parties concerned happens.
Stipulation of exemption of personal injury, as a contract or clauses of a contract, represents the will of the party concerned. Principle of autonomy of private law shall be the legal foundation of legal adjustment of stipulation of exemption of personal injury.
In period of free capitalism, the western world follows absolute autonomy of private law or concept of free contract. The party concerning the contract is considered as the best judge of his own interests. As monopoly
capitalism came into being, things developed in reverse direction. Too much emphasis on autonomy of private law leads to conflicts with social justice. Things that do not conform to social justice will also not conform to social interests. This is contrary to the imagination of Enlightenment scholars. Too much emphasis on rights frequently leads to situations of anti-justice; too much emphasis on autonomy of private law will lead to power abuse. Power abuse will do harm to other people and the society, so concept of absolute autonomy of private law is adjusted. The so-called autonomy of private law shall within the limitation of law; otherwise, it goes to the opposite side. Modern society makes extensive amendment to autonomy of private law in form. The foundation of negation of autonomy of private law shall be that autonomy of private law in form violates its ethic foundation and real foundation and it conflicts with principle of public order and good morals. The author thinks, the adjustment of stipulation of exemption of personal injury shall still be guided by fundamental principle of autonomy of private law and be dealt with cautiously so that it can conform to principle of modern autonomy of private law. The second part elaborates the first problem, that is, the relationship between the relationship between stipulation of exemption of personal injury and victim consent and assumption of the risk. The author thinks that these three belong to three independent categories. Concerning this problem, there are two different views in theory. The first view considers stipulation of exemption of personal injury as victim consent and the other view considers these two are independent. The author prefers that stipulation of exemption of personal injury and victim are independent. Through comparison, the author considers stipulation of exemption of personal injury as civil act, which demonstrates arrangement that the parties concerned share the injury. It does not have the function of excluding the nature of violation of law of the act. Victim consent belongs to quasi-law act and legitimate and valid victim consent has the function of excluding the nature of violation of law of the act. They are greatly different in content, legal nature, valid elements and legal functions. In nature, victim consent demonstrates that the victim carries out his or her rights. Stipulation of exemption of personal injury must be based
on legal relationship of contract and it is a kind of assumption of the liability of injury compensation. Some scholars propose that stipulation of exemption shall be explained by assumption of the risk, but the author thinks that assumption of the risk is a misconduct of the victim. It cannot negate the nature of violation of law of the inflictor or the existence of offence. There are two causative effects of the existence of assumption of the risk and therefore the injury shall be shared by the parties concerned. In the condition of act of assumption of the risk, there is no meaning connection between the victim, the inflictor and the two parties do not arrive at consent for the injury and the victim does not make any explicit indication. Assumption of the risk shows that the actor neglects his or her own rights, so it belongs to the category of offence of the victim. The distinction between the two is obvious. The third part concerns categorized analysis of stipulation of exemption of personal injury. It analyzes specific demonstrations and legal requirements of stipulation of exemption of personal injury in medical areas and sports areas. The fourth part concentrates on the second problem, that is, legal adjustment of stipulation of exemption of personal injury. This part introduces legislation and theoretical achievements in foreign countries concerning this problem and criticizes theoretical foundation of single way of solution. Civil liability is, in deed, not only compensative, but also punitive. Compensation is the basic function of civil law, while punishment is auxiliary function. In other words, even though serious violation of civil law is not investigated for civil liability, it still can be investigated for administrative liability, or even criminal liability. Punitive function of civil liability is limited. The stipulation exempts personal injury compensation liability. From the aspect of rights, it is right of recourse for personal injury compensation, and right of relief that is derived from personal right. This right shall be called a kind of right of property; therefore, its punitive target is not personal right and it is unreasonable to negate validity of stipulation of exemption of personal injury by the punitive limitation of personal right. Finally, it provides ideas for specific adjustment of stipulation of exemption of personal injury based on subject, form and object of stipulation
of exemption of personal injury and discusses techniques in legislation. The author thinks that general law and special law can be combined. In validity evaluation system, adjustments can be made in way of absolute invalidity or relative invalidity. The party concerned is endowed with right of revocation so that he or she can flexibly choose the way. The judge can be endowed with right of discretion to some extent, so he can flexibly solve some special problems when application of general regulations is against requirements of justices. As a kind of exemption clause, stipulation of exemption of personal injury is contractual act to eliminate debt by consent of the two parties. In this aspect, it is obviously different from victim consent and assumption of the risk. Stipulation of exemption of personal injury concerns core value of personal right, it connects with realization of autonomy of private law and has many representations and extensive existence, so its adjustment shall not be in uniform way and shall be analyzed in detail in academic theory.
引文
[1][德]卡尔·拉伦茨著,王晓烨等译:《德国民法通论》,法律出版社2003 年版,第55 页。
[2][美]罗尔斯:《正义论》,何怀宏等译,中国社会科学出版社1988 年版,第1-2 页。
[3][德]卡尔·拉伦茨著,王晓烨等译:《德国民法通论》,法律出版社2003 年版,第47 页。
[4]梁慧星:《民法总论》,法律出版社2001 年版,第96 页。
[5]王利明:《侵权行为法研究》(上卷),中国人民大学出版社2004 年版,第565 页。
[6]曾世雄:《损害赔偿法原理》,中国政法大学出版社2001 年版,第88页。
[7]程啸:《论侵权行为法中受害人的同意》,载《中国人民大学学报》,2004 年第4 期,第47 页。
[8][德]卡尔·拉伦茨著,王晓烨等译:《德国民法通论》,法律出版社2003 年版,第276 页。
[9]董安生:《民事法律行为》,中国人民大学出版社2002 年版,第78 页。
[10]史尚宽:《民法总论》,台北正大印馆1936 年第272 页,转引自董安生著:《民事法律行为》,中国人民大学出版社2002 年版,第78 页。
[11][德]卡尔·拉伦茨著,王晓烨等译:《德国民法通论》,法律出版社2003 年版,第709 页。
[12]王泽鉴:《侵权行为法》,中国政法大学出版社2001 年版第241 页
[13]程啸:《论侵权行为法中受害人的同意》,载《中国人民大学学报》2004 年第4期,第48 页
[14]王泽鉴:《侵权行为法》,中国政法大学出版社2001 年版,第241 页。
[15]曾世雄:《损害赔偿法原理》,中国政法大学出版社2001 年版,第89 页。
[16]黄丁全:《医事法》,中国政法大学出版社2001 版,第267 页。
[17]李响:《美国侵权法原理及案例研究》,中国政法大学出版社2004 年版,第433-435 页。
[18][德]克雷斯蒂安·冯·巴尔,张新宝译:《欧洲比较侵权行为法》,法律出版社2004 年版,第654 页。
[19]王泽鉴:《侵权行为法》,中国政法大学出版社2001 年版,第65 页。
[20]薛虹:《演变中的侵权责任与人身伤亡事故的赔偿》,《民商法论丛》第五卷,法律出版社1996 年版,第706-第707 页。
[21]韩世远:《免责条款研究》,《民商法论丛》第2 卷,法律出版社1994年版第458 页。
1、梁慧星主编:《民商法论丛》第二卷,法律出版社1994 年版。
2、梁慧星著:《民法总论》,法律出版社2001 年版。
3、苏永钦著:《走入新世纪的私法自治》,中国政法大学出版社2002 年版。
4、王利明编:《民法典.侵权责任法研究》,人民法院出版社2003 年版。
5、王利明著:《侵权行为法研究》,中国人民大学出版社2004 年版。
6、董安生著:《民事法律行为》,中国人民大学出版社2002 年版。
7、杨立新著:《人身权法论》,人民法院出版社2002 年版。
8、曾世雄著:《损害赔偿法原理》,中国政法大学出版社2001 年版。
9、王泽鉴著:《侵权行为法》,中国政法大学出版社2001 年版。
10、[德]卡尔·拉伦茨著,王晓烨等译:《德国民法通论》,法律出版社2003 年版。
11、梁慧星主编:《民商法论丛》第5卷,法律出版社1997 年版。
12、李响:《美国侵权法原理及案例研究》,中国政法大学出版社2004 年版。
13、克雷斯蒂安·冯·巴尔,张新宝译:《欧洲比较侵权行为法》,法律出版社2004 年版。
1、程啸:《论侵权行为法中受害人的同意》,载《中国人民大学学报》2004年第4期。
2、吴兆祥、高蔚卿:《论受害人同意》,载《山东师大学报》(社会科学版)2000 年第3期。
3、叶知年:《论受害人同意与侵权损害赔偿》,载《山东法学》1999 年第1期。
4、薛虹:《演变中的侵权责任与人身伤亡事故的赔偿》,《民商法论丛》第五卷,法律出版社1996 年版。
5、韩世远:《免责条款研究》,《民商法论丛》第2 卷,法律出版社1994年版。
[2][美]罗尔斯:《正义论》,何怀宏等译,中国社会科学出版社1988 年版,第1-2 页。
[3][德]卡尔·拉伦茨著,王晓烨等译:《德国民法通论》,法律出版社2003 年版,第47 页。
[4]梁慧星:《民法总论》,法律出版社2001 年版,第96 页。
[5]王利明:《侵权行为法研究》(上卷),中国人民大学出版社2004 年版,第565 页。
[6]曾世雄:《损害赔偿法原理》,中国政法大学出版社2001 年版,第88页。
[7]程啸:《论侵权行为法中受害人的同意》,载《中国人民大学学报》,2004 年第4 期,第47 页。
[8][德]卡尔·拉伦茨著,王晓烨等译:《德国民法通论》,法律出版社2003 年版,第276 页。
[9]董安生:《民事法律行为》,中国人民大学出版社2002 年版,第78 页。
[10]史尚宽:《民法总论》,台北正大印馆1936 年第272 页,转引自董安生著:《民事法律行为》,中国人民大学出版社2002 年版,第78 页。
[11][德]卡尔·拉伦茨著,王晓烨等译:《德国民法通论》,法律出版社2003 年版,第709 页。
[12]王泽鉴:《侵权行为法》,中国政法大学出版社2001 年版第241 页
[13]程啸:《论侵权行为法中受害人的同意》,载《中国人民大学学报》2004 年第4期,第48 页
[14]王泽鉴:《侵权行为法》,中国政法大学出版社2001 年版,第241 页。
[15]曾世雄:《损害赔偿法原理》,中国政法大学出版社2001 年版,第89 页。
[16]黄丁全:《医事法》,中国政法大学出版社2001 版,第267 页。
[17]李响:《美国侵权法原理及案例研究》,中国政法大学出版社2004 年版,第433-435 页。
[18][德]克雷斯蒂安·冯·巴尔,张新宝译:《欧洲比较侵权行为法》,法律出版社2004 年版,第654 页。
[19]王泽鉴:《侵权行为法》,中国政法大学出版社2001 年版,第65 页。
[20]薛虹:《演变中的侵权责任与人身伤亡事故的赔偿》,《民商法论丛》第五卷,法律出版社1996 年版,第706-第707 页。
[21]韩世远:《免责条款研究》,《民商法论丛》第2 卷,法律出版社1994年版第458 页。
1、梁慧星主编:《民商法论丛》第二卷,法律出版社1994 年版。
2、梁慧星著:《民法总论》,法律出版社2001 年版。
3、苏永钦著:《走入新世纪的私法自治》,中国政法大学出版社2002 年版。
4、王利明编:《民法典.侵权责任法研究》,人民法院出版社2003 年版。
5、王利明著:《侵权行为法研究》,中国人民大学出版社2004 年版。
6、董安生著:《民事法律行为》,中国人民大学出版社2002 年版。
7、杨立新著:《人身权法论》,人民法院出版社2002 年版。
8、曾世雄著:《损害赔偿法原理》,中国政法大学出版社2001 年版。
9、王泽鉴著:《侵权行为法》,中国政法大学出版社2001 年版。
10、[德]卡尔·拉伦茨著,王晓烨等译:《德国民法通论》,法律出版社2003 年版。
11、梁慧星主编:《民商法论丛》第5卷,法律出版社1997 年版。
12、李响:《美国侵权法原理及案例研究》,中国政法大学出版社2004 年版。
13、克雷斯蒂安·冯·巴尔,张新宝译:《欧洲比较侵权行为法》,法律出版社2004 年版。
1、程啸:《论侵权行为法中受害人的同意》,载《中国人民大学学报》2004年第4期。
2、吴兆祥、高蔚卿:《论受害人同意》,载《山东师大学报》(社会科学版)2000 年第3期。
3、叶知年:《论受害人同意与侵权损害赔偿》,载《山东法学》1999 年第1期。
4、薛虹:《演变中的侵权责任与人身伤亡事故的赔偿》,《民商法论丛》第五卷,法律出版社1996 年版。
5、韩世远:《免责条款研究》,《民商法论丛》第2 卷,法律出版社1994年版。