Article 1166
Where the actor causes harm to the civil rights and interests of others, regardless of whether the actor is at fault, and the law provides that they shall bear tort liability, follow those provisions.
1. The main purpose of this article
This article is a provision on the principle of attribution of no-fault liability.
II. Evolution of the Provisions
Paragraph 3 of Article 106 of the original General Principles of the Civil Law stipulates: "Where there is no fault, but the law stipulates that civil liability shall be borne, civil liability shall be borne." Article 7 of the original Tort Liability Law stipulates: "Where an actor harms the civil rights and interests of others, regardless of whether the actor is at fault or not, and the law provides that the law shall bear tort liability, such provisions shall be followed." This article amends the expression of paragraph 3 of Article 106 of the original General Principles of the Civil Law, and amends "no fault" to "regardless of whether the actor is at fault or not", which makes a more scientific and accurate disclosure of the connotation of no-fault liability. In addition, Article 7 of the original Tort Liability Law is expressed as "the actor harms the civil rights and interests of others", which is the same as the "actor" in Article 6, Paragraph 1 of the original Tort Liability Law...... infringement of the civil rights and interests of others", although the difference is only one word, the provisions of Article 7 objectively reveal that the constitutive element of "no-fault liability" should include the result element of "damage", which is also more complete and accurate than the provisions of Article 6, paragraph 1, "the principle of fault liability". This provision continues the intent of Article 7 of the original Tort Liability Law, and amends the provision to read "the actor causes damage to the civil rights and interests of others,...... Where the law provides that tort liability shall be borne, follow those provisions." From a logical and literal point of view, this amendment further improves the provisions of the original Tort Liability Law: first, it emphasizes that the actor "causes" damage to the civil rights and interests of others, and the disclosure of the elements of causal relationship is clearer, and second, "in accordance with its provisions", it shows that this article is not the basis for the right to claim that the infringer bears no-fault liability, but only an inductive declaration of the principle of attribution of no-fault liability and a summary and guidance on the constituent elements of no-fault liability. The specific basis of the claim shall be clearly provided for in accordance with the law. Therefore, this specification is not a specific basic norm for the right to claim no-fault liability, but a guiding norm.
3. Interpretation of Provisions
This article is a regulation of the principle of no-fault liability.
The principle of no-fault liability refers to the principle of attribution of liability for tort damages, regardless of whether the actor is at fault when causing damage, regardless of whether the actor is at fault when causing damage.
Under normal circumstances, tort law considers that there is fault to be liable, and there is no fault to be liable. However, after the Industrial Revolution, due to the widespread development of highly hazardous activities, the emphasis on no fault and no liability in many cases will make it impossible for many victims to obtain remedies for tort damages, so this principle of attribution was created to enable the infringed party who caused damage without the fault of the perpetrator to obtain compensation and remedies under the circumstances prescribed by law.
The application of the principle of no-fault liability to remedy the infringed party requires special provisions in the law, and the principle of no-fault liability cannot be applied if there are no special provisions in the law. Part VII of the Civil Code, "Tort Liability", stipulates that the principle of no-fault liability shall apply to product liability, liability for damage to the ecological environment, liability for high risk, and liability for damage caused by raising animals. These specific provisions are the basis for the right to claim the tort legal relationship regulated by the principle of no-fault liability, and this article is not the basis for the right of claim to which the principle of no-fault liability applies.
The constitutive elements of tort liability to which the principle of no-fault liability applies: (1) illegal acts, (2) facts of damage, and (3) causal relationship. If these three elements are met, tort liability is constituted. If the perpetrator can prove that the damage was intentionally caused by the victim himself, he is exempt from tort liability.
4. Cases
Li Mouwei v. Chen Moubin et al., a dispute over the liability of volunteer workers
Facts: Li Mouwei often drove his own semi-trailer to deliver goods for Chen Moubin and Huang Moujing. One day, Li Mouwei first drove to load about ten tons of floor tiles, and then loaded LTL goods according to Chen Moubin's arrangement. Li Mouwei opened the guardrail of the carriage, and Chen Moubin commanded the loading. Li Mouwei helped lay the backing board, place the goods, inspect the goods and count the goods. In the process, the packing iron pieces smashed Li Mouwei's calf. The court of first instance held that Li Mouwei's act of assisting in loading goods was an act of voluntary helper. Where a helper suffers personal injury as a result of helper activities, the worker shall be liable for compensation. However, Li Mouwei himself was grossly negligent, and Chen Moubin's liability for compensation should be reduced. The court of second instance held that Li Mouwei drove a vehicle to deliver goods for Chen Moubin, and according to the previous trading habits of both parties, Chen Moubin was responsible for the assembly of the goods, and Li Mouwei's act of assisting in the assembly of goods met the constitutive elements of the helper's behavior. In the process of assisting Chen Moubin in the process of loading goods, Li Mouwei failed to ensure his own safety and fell from the carriage and was injured, which was grossly negligent, and it was not improper to determine that Chen Moubin and Huang Moujing should bear 10% of the compensation liability.
5. Analysis
This case deals with the issue of tort liability of the employer when the helper suffers damage in the helper-worker relationship, that is, the employer's liability. Regardless of whether the employer is a unit or an individual, there is no essential difference in the principle of attribution of responsibility and the constituent elements of the employer's responsibility, that is, the principle of no-fault liability applies. Moreover, Article 9 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Personal Injury Compensation Cases and Article 34 of the Tort Liability Law have already stipulated that the principle of attribution of the employer's liability is no-fault liability, which is conducive to the protection of the victim and is in line with the concept of modern tort law to protect the weak and compensate for damages. Moreover, the adoption of no-fault liability will not cause an excessive economic burden on the employer, because the employer can socialize and disperse the increased costs through the liability insurance system and the pricing of products and services.