為什麼是侵權補充責任？制度形成的社科法學和法解釋學結合分析

我國侵權補充責任具有原創性，為了厘定學理和實踐的爭議問題，有必要探求制度形成的細節，通過社科法學和法解釋學的結合分析，以明確其規範目的。我國侵權補充責任有兩條制度發展路線，一是對於驗資不實導致利害關係人受損害的情形，會計師事務所承擔與一般保證嫁接的侵權補充責任;另一是在賓館住客被第三人殺害等情形，賓館承擔與安全保障義務銜接的侵權補充責任。不過，會計師事務所和賓館都是公共服務提供者，都有在陌生化社會中營造有序社會交往空間，增加人際交往確定性的義務，且兩種路線在後續發展中趨於制度一致，都以利益平衡為方法論，因而實際是同質化的。兩種路線並軌後的侵權補充責任的義務人範圍限於公共服務提供者，且僅適用於有過失的義務人，以實現保護受害人和促進公共服務發展並重的規範目的。在社會現實的約束下，目前的侵權補充責任應是最適方案。

Supplementary liability in tort in China is an original creation. In order to clarify the disputed issues in doctrine and practice, it is necessary to investigate the details of institutional formation, through a combined analysis of socio-legal and doctrinal approaches, so as to identify its normative purpose. There are two routes of institutional development for supplementary liability in tort in China. The first is that in cases where false capital verification causes harm to interested parties, accounting firms bear supplementary liability connected with general surety. The second is that in cases where a hotel guest is killed by a third party, the hotel bears supplementary liability connected with the duty of security. However, both accounting firms and hotels are providers of public services; both have the duty to create an orderly space for social interaction in an impersonal society, and the duty to increase the certainty of interpersonal interaction. Moreover, the two routes have become institutionally consistent, both adopting interest-balancing as their methodology, and therefore are in fact homogeneous. After the convergence of the two routes, the scope of obligors of supplementary liability in tort is limited to public service providers, and applies only to obligors who are negligent, in order to achieve the normative purposes of protecting victims and promoting the development of public services. Under the constraints of social reality, the current supplementary liability in tort should be regarded as the optimal solution.