【作者】 韩强；

【导师】 何勤华；

【作者基本信息】 华东政法大学 ， 法律史， 2007， 博士

【摘要】 因果关系是人类重要的认识对象。无论在自然科学领域、在哲学领域还是在社会科学领域,都不可避免地要对因果关系问题进行探寻、研究。人们对因果关系的了解程度,决定了人们对客观世界的认知程度。我们甚至可以毫不夸张地说,一切科学问题最终都将归结为因果关系。因果关系在法律领域中也有其重要地位。侵权责任的承担、违约责任的承担,乃至于刑事责任的承担无不以违法行为与损害结果之间具有因果关系为要件。在法律上,因果关系是连结案件事实和法律责任的纽带,是准确发现事实的标准,正确课加责任的前提。由于因果关系问题具有高度复杂的科学属性,且社会实践中的各类案型又千姿百态、不拘一格,这些都为恰如其分的归责活动造成了巨大的困难。为了解决法律上,特别是侵权行为法上的因果关系难题,两大法系的法律人进行了长达一个世纪的艰苦努力。在过去的一个世纪里,涌现出了大量的法律因果关系学说。但迄今为止,没有哪个学说能够将法律因果关系问题进行彻底地解决。各家学说都在一定角度上或在一定情况下揭示了因果关系的某些本质属性,但也都面临着在其他角度和情况下不适用的尴尬。由此可见,面对因果关系问题,法学界的当务之急不是再去处心积虑地发明新理论,而应该在正确认识因果关系问题根本属性的同时对既有的理论、学说进行系统地梳理和反思,力求正本清源、解疑辩难,还法律因果关系问题以本来面目,为正确解决归责问题提供妥适的思路。虽然人类系统地研究法律因果关系问题仅有百余年的历史,但在罗马法时代和早期普通法系中就具备了初步的法律因果关系观念。罗马法上对法律因果关系的描述是:“In jure non remota causa, sed proxima, spectator”,即在法律中,我们所探寻者为近因而非远因。罗马人的法律中已经明确提出能够承担法律责任的原因仅限于近因,并且将因果关系问题与责任问题紧紧地联系在了一起。在普通法历史上对因果关系问题最早作出论述的是Francis Bacon。他在1596年出版的《法律箴言》一书中对法律因果关系作出了影响深远的评论,他认为在法律上应将原因限定于直接原因之上,据此裁判案件就不需要将原因追究到更远的程度。伴随着工业时代的到来,侵权案件在各国的民事纠纷中逐渐取得重要地位,与之相对应的侵权行为法也获得了极大的发展。侵权行为法的发展使得侵权责任的归责问题变得越来越重要,于是与归责紧密相关的法律因果关系问题也就引起了法律学者的极大关注。这就是百余年来法律因果关系理论获得空前发展的历史原因。由于20世纪之前,主流的法学研究被概念法学(或分析法学)所垄断,因此当时的因果关系学说也具有浓厚的概念法学色彩。概念法学影响下的普通法系侵权行为法理论产生了不计其数的法律因果关系学说,其中具有重要影响的是“必要条件理论”、“可能的(或自然的)结果理论”、“实质因素理论”、“直接结果和表面安全理论”。大陆法系和普通法系传统上均以“必要条件”作为判断因果关系之标准。在大陆法系必要条件被称为“condition sine qua none”,在普通法系则被叫做“若无-则不”规则(but-for rule)。以必要条件理论衡量因果关系的经典公式为:若无被告之加害行为,则不会发生原告的损害结果。据此,被告的行为必须构成损害结果发生的不可欠缺的条件,才能够成立作为归责基础的因果关系。“可能的(或自然的)结果”理论最早由美国著名侵权法专家Bohlen教授在1901年加以系统地阐发。所谓“可能的(或自然的)结果”理论就是指从因果关系的角度来看,错误行为人仅对可能的损失结果负责而已。“实质因素”理论由美国著名的侵权法专家Jeremiah Smith教授于1911年正式创立。该理论在美国具有极大的影响力,被《侵权行为法重述》和《侵权行为法第二次重述》采纳作为处理因果关系问题的基本原则。该理论认为检验近因或法律因果关系的标准是被告的行为必须是造成损害结果发生的一个实质性的因素。“直接结果”和“表面安全”理论由美国的Beale教授率先全面阐述。“直接结果”理论认为,法律上的结果应该是距离加害行为最近的结果。而“最近的”的含义则在逻辑上是直接的,在因果顺序上也是直接的。而“表面安全”(apparent safety)理论则认为,当被告的积极行为达到了一个表面上安全的地方以后,法庭通常情况下就不再继续追究下去。针对Beale教授提出的这两项理论,美国著名侵权法专家Edgerton教授进行了全面、系统地批判。两人关于法律因果关系的论战构成美国侵权法学说史上的重要事件。在全面批判Beale教授学说的基础上,Edgerton教授提出以“正义的平均感觉”作为衡量的标尺,并且以“恰好可及的原因”(justly attachable cause)作为近因的检测标准。受概念法学长期统治的大陆法系理论除了具备与普通法系极为相似的“条件理论”之外,还有两个重要的因果关系学说,一个是“相当因果关系”理论,一个是“法律保护目的”理论。相当因果关系理论认为构成原因应符合两项要件:第一,该事件为损害发生之“不可欠缺的条件”,即必要条件;第二,该事件实质上增加了损害发生的客观可能性。该项理论的创始人von Kries指出“不可欠缺的条件”或其他必要条件系属因果关系的问题;反之,相当性原因则属于不相当或偶然性问题,应求诸特殊个案,而非依据一般性法则论定之。相当因果关系理论在大陆法系各国影响深远,无论在欧洲大陆还是在亚洲的日本、韩国,以及中国台湾地区都将此理论奉为通说。由于相当因果关系理论中对“相当性”的判断具有很大的模糊性和随意性,为纠正这种模糊性所带来的对法律政策的滥用,于是一种旨在严格限定法律政策运用的理论——法律保护目的理论应运而生。法律保护目的理论主张侵权行为所生损害赔偿责任应探究侵权行为法律的保护目的来加以决定。其理论依据有二:第一,行为人究其侵害行为所生损害应否负责系法律问题,属法之判断,应依法律保护目的认定;第二,相当因果关系说的内容抽象不确定,难以合理界限损害赔偿的范围。该理论在大陆法系兴起于20世纪40年代,而在普通法系1909年就已经有人在熟练运用相似法律概念了。在法律思想史上,与概念法学相对立的是所谓现实主义法学。现实主义法学在欧洲大陆和美国均有其发展的缘由和历史。现实主义法学的发展为侵权行为法带来了全新的观念,也创造出了一些令人耳目一新的法律因果关系学说。其中具有开创性地位的是美国现实主义法律运动干将——Leon Green教授。Green认为因果关系作为法律概念仅应适用于案件调查的第一阶段,即调查案件事实的阶段。因而,因果关系在法律上应该完全是一个纯粹的事实问题,而不是象通常所理解的那样还包含多重的功能。那些其他的考量因素应被用来分析第二阶段的工作,即所谓的“对损害结果的合理的侵权责任范围”。在这样的概念之下,第二阶段调查出于其非事实属性,就不应再被称为因果关系。在现实主义法学的观念中,案件第一阶段是所谓事实调查阶段,在此阶段是探究因果关系事实为任务;第二阶段则是所谓的法律调查阶段,在此阶段完全是法官根据法律政策来对责任的归属作出决断。除Leon Green以外,Fleming James在系统研究“可预见性”理论的时候也采取了现实主义法学的立场。罗斯科·庞德教授更是主张以“社会普遍安全”作为衡量因果关系问题的标尺,其以公共政策代替法律解释的意图昭然若揭。另外,经济分析法学运用新的研究工具将现实主义法学引向了新的境界,其在法律因果问题上具有与现实主义法学家相似的立场。传统概念法学(分析法学)在经历了现实主义法学革命性的冲击以后,在20世纪后半叶又以新分析法学的面目出现。哈特是新分析法学的代表人物,他在法律因果关系问题上也颇有建树。哈特及其搭档奥诺尔教授试图恢复宽泛地适用因果分析的路子,并以此作为决定最终责任的方法。哈特和奥诺尔关于因果关系的学说具有某种综合性的特征,他们试图在概念法学的技术和现实主义法学的政策之间进行某种综合。这种综合是全方位的,即涉及逻辑推导规则上的综合,也涉及到事实判断与政策考量上的综合。此外,哈特和奥诺尔又特别强调常识在决定因果关系问题上的重要意义,所以他们的学说也被广泛称为“常识因果关系”理论。除了哈特和奥诺尔的“常识因果关系”理论之外,Richard Epstein则在法律技术上进一步将法律因果关系限定为四种类型,称为“因果关系范例”。这四组范例分别基于力量、惊恐、强迫和危险环境等因素构成。Epstein认为这四组范例足以解决一切法律因果关系问题。运用概念法学的方法研究因果关系的集大成者是Richard W. Wright教授。Wright的学说受到概念法学和现实主义法学的双重影响,他的最大贡献是进一步系统阐发了由哈特和奥诺尔教授创立的检验因果关系的“NESS”规则。他的理论无所不包,几乎涵盖了现在所能见到的全部因果关系案型。治史之目的在于明鉴。通过系统考察历史上各类法律因果关系学说,可以就法律因果关系的认识和处理得出若干基本结论。首先,法律中的事实为主观的事实,即裁判者经过对证据的审核与评判,进而形成心证基础上的主观判断。法律上的一切事实均为经过主观认知的事实,因此法律上无所谓客观事实。且由于人类在证明能力上的局限性,任何证据均无法完全再现客观事实的全貌,于是主观事实与客观事实之间永远存在偏差。而所谓法律上的因果关系,也无非是客观因果事实在人们头脑中不甚精确的主观反映而已。既然客观事实无从获知,那么在法律上归责的依据就难免要求诸于政策考量。出于人们追求公平正义的心理习惯,归责上的政策考量又难免表现为以公认的道德标准作为评判责任的依据,这就是人类现代法律无一例外地以过错作为归责要件的基本原因。更多还原

【Abstract】 Causation, which is one of the most important subjects in human’s cognition, is an inevitable problem in our study under the realm of natural science and philosophy. The more we know about the causation, the well we can understand the world. We even can make a conclusion that every scientific question boils down to the question of causation.Causation is also of great importance in legal field. There will be no obligation in torts or contract or criminal law without the test of causation, which is the bond between fact and legal responsibility and the prerequisite of the legal responsibility.But we must admit that causation is a very complicated question and resides in manifold cases, which cause great trouble in dealing with the issue of obligation. In order to solve this causation-conundrum, people in continent law and common law system have done hardy efforts for over a century. But up until today, none of the legal causation theories sprung up in the past century can perfectly solve this conundrum. Each theory, on one hand, reveals some nature of causation, but on the other hand, is confronted with the exception to which it is not applicable. So it is unnecessary for us to contrive new theory for causation. It is time to coordinate these theories and apprehend the fundamental nature of causation, so as to reveal the kernel of this puzzle and offer a suitable approach to handling the issue of obligation.It is for only one hundred year or more that people have study legal causation problem comprehensively. But the concept of causation has come to existence in the age of Roman law and ancient common law. In Roman law, the causation was depicted as“In jure non remota causa, sed proxima, spectator”that means what we need is not the remote causation but the proximate one, which obviously correlated causation with obligation tightly and clarified the proximate causation was the only suitable one when imposing legal obligation. Francis Bacon has made profound comments about legal causation in his famous book——the maxims of law——published in 1596, which was the first treatise about causation in common law history. In this book he indicated that only the direct causation is practicable in law field.In the industrial era, Torts enjoyed a remarkable development, which led to the progress of the causation theories to which the issue of obligation that is an important factor in torts law is close related. But those causation theories were imbued with conceptualism which is the magisterial school before the 20th century.The theories about torts in common law influenced by conceptualism have produced lots of theories about legal causation, among which are these main theories such as condition sine qua none、probable or nature result、substantial factor and direct result and apparent safety. Necessary condition, which is described as“condition sine qua none”in civil law or“but-for rule”in common law, is considered as the common standard when judging the existence of the legal causation. There is a classic formula in necessary condition theory that is“the plaintiff could have not suffered the damage but for the infringement of the defendant”which means the legal causation exists only when the infringement of the defendant constitutes the necessary condition for the plaintiff’s damage. The theory of“probable or nature result”, which is first proposed by Bohlen, one of the famous scholar in torts, in 1901, figures out that those who do wrong would only take responsibility for the damage that is probable or nature. And“substantial factor theory”, built up by professor Jeremiah Smith in 1911, which was of great significance in America law history and adopted by“The Restatement of Tort Law”and“The Second Restatement of Tort Law”as the fundamental doctrine in judging the existence of legal causation, indicates that the standard of legal causation is whether the action of defendant constitutes the substantial factor leading to the damage of the plaintiff. And professor Beale was the first person comprehensively expounded the“direct result”and“apparent safety”theory. He figured out that“direct result”means the legal result should be confined to the proximate one which is immediate both in logic and in cause-result sequence, while“apparent safety”means when the defendant’s positive action contributes to apparent safety situation, the court usually would stop imposing duty on him. But Professor Edgerton criticized Beale’s theory severely and systemically. Their argument marked a significant event in the history of American Torts law. On the basis of his criticism of Beale, professor Edgerton proposed a new standard named“The Average justice felling”, and he insisted that the justly attachable cause is the only criterion in judging the proximate cause.Beside the condition theory that is similar to the“condition sine qua none theory”in common law, the continent law, which is under the reign of conceptualism for a long time, has two more important causation theories called“adequate causation”and“the purpose of statute”. In“adequate causation theory”, causation consists of two factors. One is that the incident should be an indispensable condition, which is just necessary condition, of the damage; the other is this incident materially fortifies the possibility of the occurrence of the damage. Von Kries, who proposed the“adequate causation”theory, pointed out that indispensable condition or other necessary condition is about causation, while the adequacy is about inadequacy or contingency which should be assessed in individual cases rather than according to universal doctrine. This theory exerted a profound influence to the member countries of the continent law system, such as Japan, Korea, and Taiwan region of china where it is regarded as the mainstream. But indeed, the estimation of adequacy in adequate causation theory is kind of arbitrary which would cause the abuse of law. To rectify this limitation, a new theory named“the purpose of statute”was produced which is aimed to strictly limit the use of law. This theory put forward an idea that compensation depends on the purpose of statute because of two essential reasons: for one thing, whether a person should take responsibility for the damage is actually a legal question which needs to be answered by the purpose of law; for another, the content of adequate causation theory is so arbitrary that it is difficult to calculate the suitable compensation. The“purpose of statute theory”emerged in the 1940s while scholar in common law has used the similar theory with proficiency early in 1909.Legal realism, opposed to the conceptualism during the intellectual history of law and developed both in America and Europe, has brought brand-new concepts into the torts law and produced some special legal causation theories. The most seminal one was proposed by Professor Leon Green, the famous pioneer in the legal realism campaign in America. He pointed out that causation used as a legal conception should be considered only in the first stage of the investigation, which is the fact-investigation. And he insisted causation was only about sheer fact. The other factors or functions of causation in common understanding actually belongs to the task of stage two—make certain the suitable bound of the compensation, which was not supposed to be called“causation”according to its nothing-about-fact nature. In the theory of legal realism, the first stage when investigating a case is so-called fact-investigation, of which the task is explore the existence of causation, while the second stage is so-called legal-investigation, of which the task is impose responsibility according to law. Beside Leon Green, Fleming James also stands for legal realism when systemically studying his“foreseeability theory”. Professor Rosco.Pound, with a clear aim to replace statute explanation by public policy, even take“general social safety”as the standard of the estimation of causation. Jurisprudence of economic analysis, which has made contribution to the development of legal realism, also takes the same position on legal causation issue.After 1950s, Jurisprudence of conceptualism impacted by the legal realism campaign has developed into new jurisprudence of analysis, of which Hart is a representative scholar who has also contributed a lot to legal causation conundrum. Hart and his colleague Aonore proposed a new theory about causation which has a broader bound about causation. This is a synthetic theory which has combined technique of conceptualism and the policy of legal realism and coordinated the logic and the fact and the policy. Also, Hart and Aonore put emphasis on the importance of common sense in estimating causation, which is the reason why their theory is also been named“common sense causation”. Later, Richard Epstein further classified legal causation into four categories named“causal paradigms”, that is strength、fright、force and dangerous condition, and Epstein was confident that these four categories can solve all legal causation problems. Professor Richard W. Wright, who is a splendid scholar in jurisprudence of conceptualism, further develops the NESS doctrine in estimating causation proposed by Hart and Aonore. His theory which is affected by both conceptualism and legal realism is so comprehensive and material that almost cover all the causation cases thus far.The purpose of studying history is to give us guidance on our life and research. With the review of all the causation theories in the history, we can make some basic conclusion. Firstly, the so-called fact in law field is actually the subjective fact which is on the basis of the judge’s own examination and judgment about the evidence. We even can say that, in law field, every“fact”is subjective and there is no objective fact. Secondly, because of the limitation in human’s ability, no evidence can reproduce the real fact or event, which means that the deviation from the real fact is inevitable. So the so-called legal causation is just an inexact and subjective reflection of the objective cause-result in human’s mind. Since that the objective fact is beyond human’s perception, the issue of obligation is supposed to depend on public policy. By virtue of human’s psychological custom to pursue fairness and equity, the consideration of the public policy always embodies the extensively accepted moral criterion, which is the basic reason why fault is a fundamental factor in the consideration of obligation.更多还原