Article 1178
Where this Law and other laws have other provisions on the circumstances of not assuming responsibility or mitigating responsibility, follow those provisions.
1. The main purpose of this article
This article is a provision on the rules for the application of the law on the reasons for reduction and exemption of liability.
II. Evolution of the Provisions
Article 5 of the original Tort Liability Law stipulates: "Where other laws have other special provisions on tort liability, those provisions shall prevail." The tort liability section of the Civil Code does not retain this provision, but on this basis, it has made targeted refinements and clarified the relevant rules for the application of law on the grounds for exemption or reduction of liability. Article 955 of the Third Draft of the Civil Code on Tort Liability provides that if this Part and other laws provide otherwise on the circumstances of non-liability or mitigation of liability, such provisions shall prevail. It was suggested that this article was a catch-all clause for non-liability or mitigation of liability. In addition to the part on tort liability, other parts of the Civil Code and other laws have clear provisions on the circumstances under which liability is not borne or mitigated, and it is recommended that the catch-all clause cover these circumstances. This opinion was adopted by the legislature, which culminated in this provision.
3. Interpretation of Provisions
This article is about the application of the grounds for exemption and reduction of liability stipulated in the Civil Code and other laws.
The reasons for exemption provided for in the Civil Code mainly refer to the reasons for exemption provided for in Part I of the Civil Code "General Provisions". The force majeure provided for in Article 180 of the Civil Code, the justifiable defense provided for in Article 181, the emergency avoidance provided for in Article 182, and the emergency rescue provided for in Article 184 are all grounds for exemption and mitigation of liability, and can be used as reasons for exemption or reduction of liability for tort liability. Of course, there is no problem with the exemption from liability stipulated in Part VII of the Civil Code, "Tort Liability".
The reasons for exemption provided for in other laws refer to the reasons for exemption and reduction of liability for tort liability stipulated in other civil laws or non-civil laws other than the Civil Code. For example, the Road Traffic Safety Law stipulates the exemption from liability for road traffic accidents, the Product Quality Law stipulates the exemption from product liability, and the resource protection law and environmental protection law of various ministries also stipulate the corresponding exemption and reduction of liability. In the application of law in tort liability disputes, the above-mentioned reasons are all exemptions or reductions under the special law, and they should also be applied.
4. Cases
Jiang Mouxin v. Jiang Mouxing et al., a dispute over compensation for damages for emergency hedging
Facts: Lin Mouxin, as the owner, rented the house to Jiang Mouhong, and Jiang Mouhong subleased the first floor of the store to Jiang Mouxing, and subleased the third floor to Jiang Mouxin. Jiang Mouxing's employee Su Mouman used a liquefied gas stove to boil water, but did not take care of it, and the water was boiled dry and caused a fire. Jiang Mouxin was unable to escape from the stairs, so he jumped out of the window on the third floor and fell to the ground and was injured. The court of first instance held that the defendant Su Mouman boiled water and neglected to take care of the fire during working hours, and the plaintiff Jiang Mouxin was unable to escape from the stairs, in order to avoid the fire from causing damage to himself, he jumped from the window, which met the conditions for emergency avoidance, and the person who caused the danger should be liable for compensation. Su Mouman is a staff member hired by the defendant Jiang Mouxing, and if the plaintiff Jiang Mouxin is injured due to fault at work, the employer Jiang Mouxing shall be liable for compensation. Therefore, the defendant Jiang Mouxing should be liable for the plaintiff Jiang Mouxin's damages. When plaintiff Jiang Mouxin jumped off the building, he adopted improper measures and should bear 20% responsibility for his own losses. The court of second instance only lowered the proportion of liability borne by Jiang Mouxin at its discretion.
5. Analysis
Emergency avoidance generally refers to situations in which damage is caused to others in order to avoid imminent danger to oneself or others. Does emergency avoidance apply to the situation where the evasive person causes damage to himself? The trial court held that the damage caused by the evacuator to himself can also constitute emergency evasion. In our view, emergency avoidance is only applicable to cases where the person seeking risk has caused damage to others, and not to cases where damage has been caused to oneself. When the emergency avoidant's hedging behavior causes damage to himself, there is no question of the hedger's responsibility for himself, and there is naturally no need to claim emergency avoidance and be exempted from liability. The question is only who bears the damage suffered by the hedger. The issues that need to be discussed in this case are: whether the plaintiff Jiang Mouxin's act was a reasonable and proper act, whether it led to the interruption of the causal relationship, and if it was a reasonable and proper act, the person who caused the fire should bear full liability for compensation. If it is an unreasonable act, the person who caused the fire still bears tort liability as the tortfeasor, but he can request a reduction in liability for the damage that Jiang Mouxin has expanded due to his own fault.