安全保障义务:属性识别与责任分配——兼评《民法典侵权责任编(草案第三次审议稿)》第973条

《侵权责任法》第37条第1款是违反安全保障义务的过错责任之规范基础,其设置于该法第6条第1款过错责任一般条款之后是过错责任从一般到具体的规范逻辑范式。侵权法的功能主要为救济与预防,故宜将第37条"造成他人损害"修改为"侵害他人民事权益",从而为停止侵害、排除妨碍、消除危险等责任方式的司法适用提供通道。为充分救济损害,宜认可安全保障义务具有法定义务与合同义务的双重属性。根据补充责任制度的内在逻辑,第37条第2款的适用范围应限缩为"第三人的主观故意+安全保障义务人的主观过失",进而在立法上明确补充责任人承担责任后可向第三人追偿的法权结构。对《侵权责任法》第37条的检讨,可以作为完善《民法典侵权责任编(草案第三次审议稿)》第973条的基础。

Safety Guarantee Obligation: Attribute Identification and Responsibility Distribution——Comment on Article 973 of the Civil Code Tort Responsibility(The third change of the draft)

Article 37,paragraph 1 of the Tort Liability Act is the normative basis of the fault liability for breach of security obligations.It follows the general to specific logic paradigm thus set after the general clause of fault liability in Article 6(1)of the Act.The function of Tort Law is mainly relief and prevention.Therefore,it is advisable to amend Article 37 of the Tort Liability Law from"cause damage to others"to"infringe on the civil rights and interests of others",so as to fulfill the judicial application of responsibilities like stopping infringement,removing obstacles,eliminating dangers and other forms of responsibilities.In order to fully remedy the damage,it should be recognized that the security obligation has the dual attributes of statutory obligations and contractual obligations.According to the inherent logic of the supplementary liability system,the scope of application of Article 37,paragraph 2 of the Tort Liability Law should be limited to"subjective intention of the third party,and subjective negligence of the security guarantee obligor",and further clear the legal structure of the supplementary responsibility in the legislation that after assuming responsibility,it can be recovered from a third party.The review of Article 37 of the Tort Liability Law can serve as the basis for improving Article 973 of the Civil Code Tort Responsibility(The third change of the draft).