基於類型區分的免責條款效力判斷

對於一般免責條款的效力控制，以及其與格式條款的關係，理論和實踐存在不少誤解。免責條款的效力判斷應當基於責任性質而作區分，適用不同規則。免除侵權責任時，應遵循與自甘冒險、受害人同意相同的價值判斷，以法律行為無效的一般規則判斷免責條款效力，即使人身損害、故意或重大過失造成的財產損失也可能免責。《民法典》第506條應作限制，不適用於侵權責任的免除。對於違約責任，免除故意、重大過失違反主要義務而生的救濟時，免責條款無效，依據在於原因或正當性的喪失導致法律行為的自我否定。違約和侵權責任競合時，依據更側重的責任性質處理。就與格式條款的關係而言，第506條第1項只適用於格式條款;第2項和第497條第2、3項可能形成適用範圍交集，此時後者優先適用。兩條不宜混淆，或被籠統界定為一般法與特別法。

For the validity of non-standard exemption clauses, and its relationship with that of the standard terms, there are many misunderstandings, theorical and practical. The validity of exemption clauses should be determined separately according to the nature of the liability. As for the tort liability, the same value judgment as assumption of risk and victim consent should be followed, judging the validity of exemption clauses based on the general rule of invalidity of legal transactions. Even personal injury, intentional or grossly negligent property damage can be exempted. The scope of article 506 of the Civil Code should thus be restricted. As regards to the contractual liability, the exemption clauses are void, when the remedies for the breach of major duties intentionally or in gross negligence are deprived. The invalidity is based on the loss of cause or justification, which leads to the self-negation of legal transactions. When tort and breach of contract concur, the determination of validity should refer to the solution of the major liability. The subparagraph (1) of article 506 should apply only to the standard terms. The subparagraph (2) of article 506 may intersects with subparagraphs (2)(3) of article 497 and in this situation the latter one should apply. These two articles shouldn't be confused, neither conform generally the relation of general law and special law.