Article 1174
If the damage is intentionally caused by the victim, the perpetrator is not liable.
1. The main purpose of this article
This article deals with the victim's intentional act as a cause for exemption.
II. Evolution of the Provisions
Article 27 of Chapter III of the original Tort Liability Law, "Circumstances of Non-Liability and Mitigation of Liability", stipulates the content of this article, and the tort liability section of the Civil Code integrates the content of Chapters 1 to 3 of the original Tort Liability Law, so this article has been absorbed into the "General Provisions" of Chapter 1 of the Tort Liability Section, and the specific expression has not changed.
3. Interpretation of Provisions
This article provides for the exemption from liability for damage caused intentionally by the victim.
This provision is problematic in fact, because the victim's intent is not a generally applicable exemption, but only an exemption in the field where the principle of no-fault liability applies.
The true implication of this provision is that the perpetrator is not liable when the intent or negligence of the victim is the sole cause of the damage.
This rule should be understood in comparison with the rule of offsetting fault provided for in the preceding article. The preceding article stipulates that if the act of the infringer is the cause of the victim's damage, the infringer shall bear the tort liability, but if the victim is also negligent for the occurrence of the damage and the act is also causal, the two parties shall share the loss. What this article provides is that, although the act of the perpetrator is the cause of the damage to the victim, the damage is caused intentionally or negligently by the victim and is the entire cause of the damage, the perpetrator is exempt from liability. For example, if the victim commits suicide while lying on the subway track, although it was the train of the subway company that damaged it, it was intentionally done by the victim, and the subway company is not liable. This is where the principle of no-fault liability applies. Article 76 of the Road Traffic Safety Law stipulates that if the motor vehicle is not liable for damage caused by intentional collision with a motor vehicle, it is an exemption in the field of application of the principle of presumption of fault.
4. Cases
Li Mouqing and Song Mouning v. Qinghai H Middle School, a dispute over compensation for personal injuries
Facts: Li Mouqing, the son of Song Mouning, is a student of H Middle School. Li carried a note in the political class examination, and the school's Academic Affairs Office and the Political and Educational Office determined that the fact of Li cheating was established, gave him a demerit punishment, and posted the punishment decision on the campus bulletin board. Li returned home after seeing it, did not go to school again, and was later found hanged himself. The court of first instance held that although the defendant H Middle School's decision to punish Li for cheating was flawed, there was no direct causal relationship with Li's death by hanging, so it was not liable for compensation for the consequences of Li's suicide. The court of second instance held that it was not improper for H Middle School to deal with Li's conduct as cheating, and that it was not illegal to give him a demerit punishment and post the punishment decision, and did not deprive him of his right to defend the punishment decision. H Middle School was not at fault for failing to fulfill the duty of reasonable care for Li's failure to arrive at school. However, there is a certain fault for violating the work requirements and failing to follow the relevant regulations in the process of punishment. In view of the fact that the main reason for the occurrence of this case was Li's limited ability to bear the setback, the reason for requiring H Middle School to bear full liability for compensation was not established, and it was ordered to bear 20% of the compensation liability based on its fault in its working methods and operating procedures.
5. Analysis
Where the victim intentionally causes harm to himself, the perpetrator does not bear tort liability. Although the perpetrator has committed a prior act, the act has not caused damage to the victim, that is, there is no causal relationship between the perpetrator's prior act and the victim's damage, and the damage is entirely caused by the victim's own intentional act, and the victim's intentional act is the sole cause of the damage. The victim, Li, was punished by the school for cheating in taking the school exam, and finally committed suicide. Although there were certain flaws in the school's working methods and operating procedures when making the punishment decision, there was no direct causal relationship with Li's death by hanging, because it was the school's duty to manage and educate students, and the student's suicide was entirely caused by his own reasons. Even if there are some flaws in the school's management behavior, there is no causal relationship between this and student suicide. In short, if the actor's prior act does not in itself constitute a tort, or if the actor's prior act constitutes a tort but does not have a substantial causal relationship with the victim's suicide, the victim's suicide will interrupt the causal relationship between the perpetrator's prior act and the victim's damage. In this case, it should be considered that the damage was intentionally caused by the victim, and the perpetrator does not need to bear tort liability.