| 英文摘要 |
Freedom means autonomy, self-discipline and responsibility, has a natural connection with tort liability law. Freedom is not only the basic value orientation of tort liability law, but also the basic spirit of sports. Para. 1 of article 1176 of the Civil Code of PRC mainly deals with sports injuries caused by the negligence of players to other players or spectators, as well as sports injuries caused by the negligence of referees to players. Therefore, it is necessary to focus on the negligence liability of players and the negligence liability of referees. Reviewing the para.1 of article 1176 of the Civil Code of PRC from the perspective of the spirit of freedom and English law, it can be known that the provision that “other participants” shall bear the liability for sports injuries only if they have intentional or gross negligence is debatable, because the liability for sports negligence are essentially the same as the liability for medical negligence. From the perspective of safeguarding sports freedom, the common standard of negligence should be applied, and learn from the “test of regardless of safety” of English law, to judge the liability of sports injury in the fierce state of competition, for sticking to the bottom line that sports activities should “win within the scope of rules”. From the perspective of jurisprudence and comparative law, this paper discusses these problems by using a large number of English law documents and case studies, and puts forward some suggestions on the improvement of Para. 1 of article 1176. |
