單獨侵權視角下的比例連帶責任研究——以《民法典》第1172條的法律適用為核心

侵權法中的比例連帶責任研究應從《民法典》第1172條入手考查。自單獨侵權視角看，《民法典》第1172條應為數人分別侵權時任一侵權人的減責抗辯事由的規定。由此，比例連帶責任可分為虛假的比例連帶責任與真正的比例連帶責任，可將''僅某部分侵權人不得主張以《民法典》第1172條作為減責的抗辯事由''作為描述真正的比例連帶責任的公式。從《民法典》第1172條入手，數人分別侵權時，真正的比例連帶責任與完全連帶責任情形，關鍵問題都在於：''某一侵權人為什麼對外應負全部責任？''針對上述關鍵問題，分析相關法條，可得如下原理：①故意之侵權人不可援引''另需他人分別實施侵權行為造成同一損害''作為減責事由；②不可一般性地認為無過錯責任侵權可適用或類推適用《民法典》第1172條；③應控制或承受自身或他人的''易偏離按理性人標準行事的風險''的人，在這種風險實現造成受害人損害時，不得以該''人員素質風險''的形成可能起到引發或助成作用的第三人的過錯作為其減責的抗辯事由。

The study of proportional joint liability in tort law should commence with an examination of Article 1172 of the Civil Code. From the perspective of individual tort, Article 1172 of the Civil Code should be construed as a provision establishing a defense for liability reduction for any given tortfeasor in cases of separate torts committed by multiple parties. Consequently, proportional joint liability can be bifurcated into“spurious”(false) proportional joint liability and“genuine”(true) proportional joint liability; the formula“only certain tortfeasors are precluded from asserting Article 1172 of the Civil Code as a defense for liability reduction”may serve as the descriptor for genuine proportional joint liability. Starting from Article 1172, in both cases of genuine proportional joint liability and full joint liability involving separate torts by multiple parties, the fundamental question is:“Why should a particular tortfeasor be held externally liable for the entirety of the damages?”Through an analysis of relevant legal provisions, the following principles can be derived:①An intentional tortfeasor cannot invoke the fact that“another party separately committed a tortious act causing the same damage”as a ground for liability reduction;②It cannot be generally assumed that strict liability torts are subject to the application or analogical application of Article 1172 of the Civil Code;③Parties who are tasked with controlling or bearing the“risk of deviating from the reasonable person standard”—whether their own or that of others—cannot, upon the realization of such risk resulting in harm to the victim, assert the fault of a third party that may have triggered or contributed to the formation of this“personnel quality risk”as a defense for liability reduction.