【作者】 葛洪涛；

【导师】 梁慧星；

【作者基本信息】 山东大学 ， 法学理论， 2008， 博士

【摘要】 作为侵权法归责体系中的一个基本要件,因果关系为每天的司法实践所操作。但作为侵权法的一个基本理论问题,因果关系却是众说纷纭,未获得根本解决。本文以因果关系的性质与功能为中心,对因果关系问题进行多角度的研究。在绪论简短地引出因果关系问题的重要性之后,文章分四章分别基于历史的、哲学的、系统的、类型的角度对因果关系问题进行了探讨。最后提出自己的结论。文章的整体思路为:历史论展现了因果关系的现实背景——性质与功能地位存在理论的混乱;基础论说明了因果关系能够提供什么功能——因果关系指向事实层面,这决定了因果关系能够为法律归责作出的可能贡献;关系论表明了侵权归责体系需要因果关系提供什么功能——提供事实上的因果链条,价值判断与政策考量的功能由其他要件承担更为合适:类型论补充论证了因果关系事实性指向的性质——区分过错与无过错责任为事实性因果关系划定了适用范围,整理特殊因果类型再次论证其提供事实链条的基础功能;最后基本的结论是在过错责任中,要坚持事实性因果关系一元论,将价值判断与政策考量的因素从因果关系中剔除。认为重新界定功能后的归责体系结构在理论上更合理,在实践上能更好地说明案件。第一章是侵权法中因果理论历史论。在该部分,作者首先梳理了两大法系因果关系理论的发展,分析了英美法系的“But for”规则、“实质因素”规则、“直接结果”规则与“预见性”规则、大陆法系的“条件说”、“原因说”、“相当因果关系说”、“法规目的说”等主要的因果关系学说。同时介绍了在大陆法系刑法学中具有广泛影响、最近也开始进入民法视野的“客观归责”理论。然后将视角转向国内,回顾了因果关系理论在我国的大致发展。在回顾因果理论的发展历史及总结我国研究现状的基础上,作者认为:就各国一般因果理论而论,将因果关系的判断区分为两个阶段的做法让人质疑(英美法系区分事实上的因果关系与法律上的因果关系,大陆法系区分必要条件判断与相当性判断);而对我国因果理论而言,又缺乏哲学的、系统论的及类型化的研究。出于对因果理论“两分法”的质疑,结合我国的研究现状,文章对于侵权法中因果关系展开了哲学、系统、类型三个角度(即下面三章)的研究。第二章是侵权法中的因果理论基础论。本章是基于探究侵权法中因果关系的基本性质而对哲学中相关的因果理论进行的研究。作者首先探讨了哲学中的因果理论与法学中的因果理论的关系。认为在我国侵权法因果关系的研究中,仍然需要全面深入地整理哲学因果理论的成果。对于“强调区分哲学中的因果理论与侵权法中的因果理论,主张在侵权法中的因果关系研究中不应过多强调哲学因果理论影响的观点”,作者认为这是一种误解,是因为哲学因果理论的“必然性与偶然性”分析框架在侵权法中的失灵,而引起的对哲学因果理论的反感与轻视。其实“必然性与偶然性因果关系”只是哲学因果理论中的一种观点,或者说是一种分析方法。随后作者梳理了与侵权法中的因果理论联系密切的三种哲学因果理论:休谟、康德及逻辑实证主义(主要是莱欣巴哈)的因果理论。休谟认为在“关于实际的事情”中没有必然性知识,主张因果关系不过是“基于过去事物的惯常结合而做的习惯性联想”,但他同时认为:“因果关系是可靠性程度最高的关于实际事情的推理方式”。休谟的结论对于侵权法中因果理论产生两方面的影响:一,它打破了因果关系的必然性神话,让人们对于侵权法中因果关系所揭示的事实性程度产生怀疑;二,它指出在各种关于实际事情的推理方式中,因果关系具有最高的可靠程度,这提示因果关系还要在侵权归责中一如既往地发挥作用。康德因果理论的诱人之处在于其关于因果关系“必然性”特征的论证。但经过考查我们发现康德的“必然性”并非休谟所讲的“关于实际事情之间联系”的必然性,而是现实事物的联系方式必然符合于“先天的因果范畴”的“必然性”。而由于先天因果范畴是头脑的产物,这样康德就把因果判断的最终根据由客观转向了主观。对于因果关系判断的客观性质而言,康德的必然性并没有实质性贡献。莱欣巴哈关于因果关系的概率论解决方案对于侵权法中的因果理论意义重大。莱欣巴哈并不认为事物之间一定具有必然联系,但是他认为,如果存在这种必然联系的话,我们就可以通过概率论来把握这种联系。他认为,通过不断的观察与统计“两事物结合出现的频率”,我们就可以不断地接近关于事物联系的“极限频率”(如抛掷硬币足够多的次数,其正面朝上的概率为50%),这种极限频率即为事物之间联系的规律。而如果事物的联系不具有规律性,即不存在这样“极限频率”的话,运用这种方法我们也不会失去什么。即概率论是把握这种联系的最好方法。基于马克思主义的观点,我们当然承认事物之间的客观性联系。概率论的意义在于它提供了寻求事物客观性联系的“最好方法”,而这种概率统计的方法又是客观与可验证的。即,莱欣巴哈的概率论将因果关系的必然性问题存而不论,但却重建了因果关系性质的客观性。这一结论对于侵权法中的因果关系来说意义重大,为其提供了坚实的哲学基础。哲学中因果理论的基本研究结论是:哲学中的因果理论给法学中的因果理论提供了“核心的意义”,即探求并提供关于事物之间的客观性的联系(虽然不能提供必然性的联系,但是通过概率能提供客观性的联系,这种客观性是不以人的意志为转移的)。第三章是侵权法中因果理论关系论。本章以系统论原理为指导,将归责要件体系视为一个系统。以合理的归责为前提,以理清归责各要件的功能为目标,以其它要件对于因果关系要件的政策考量功能的替代性为重点,进行因果关系内外部关系的考查。以归责要件体系为界,将因果关系问题区分为内部问题与外部问题。在内部关系上,考查了因果关系与“归责”、过错、损害及违法性的关系。得出了其他要件完全可以分担因果关系中政策考量的功能。在外部关系上,探讨了因果关系与法律政策、刑法中因果关系的关系。认为因果关系要件不是法律政策进入侵权法责任认定过程的合适途径;刑法中的因果关系与侵权法中的因果关系性质是同一的——都指向事物联系的客观层面;将政策考量的内容从因果关系要件中剔除有利于“判决正当化的实现”,因为失去了因果关系“客观性”的幌子,政策考量更易于受到监督。第四章是侵权法中因果理论类型论。在该部分,首先区分了过错责任与无过错责任中的因果关系类型,从而为客观性因果关系一元论的适用划定范围。在过错责任中,作者坚持适用客观性因果关系一元论。完全将政策性考量的因素从因果关系要件中剔除,还原因果关系事实性指向的本来面目。而对于无过错责任,则持谨慎态度。认为虽然在无过错责任中具有多个责任限制的手段,如违法性要件、赔偿限额、比较过错等,但由于一方面无过错责任涵盖的领域宽泛,且随着社会的进步将会面临日新月异的新案件类型;另一方面缺少了过错这一政策考量的基本入口,所以将政策性考量从因果关系之中剔除的合理性与可行性需要仔细斟酌。稳妥起见,暂时保留传统两分法的因果理论在这一领域内的适用。在该部分,文章还探讨了各种特殊的因果关系类型,如重叠因果关系、择一因果关系、超越因果关系、假设因果关系及累积因果关系等。针对各种特殊因果类型名称与定义的不统一进行了分析与整理。认为特殊因果类型研究的意义主要在于提供因果链条的不同种类,指导案件事实层面的澄清,并有助于侵权行为的类型化。但是对于责任的认定,特殊因果类型的研究则只能提供间接的帮助。因为具体案情的差异,相同因果类型之下的责任认定并不相同。这也再次说明了“因果链条的截取”,即责任的认定是诸要件合力的结果,而非因果关系单独所能解决。最后作者还讨论了普通的因果关系与人际交互的因果关系(心理因果关系)、认定的因果关系与推定的因果关系、解释性因果关系与归责性因果关系。认为概率论在心理因果关系与推定因果关系之中仍能发挥一定的作用。就心理因果关系来说,通过人们对于特定言行反应的观察与统计,可以为案件中心理影响的认定提供指导。而对于因果关系的推定而言,其依据主要有二,一是客观的概率,二是政策的考量。概率论的作用就是作为其主要依据之一来实现的。最后是结语部分。通过上述四个部分的论述,作者提出了过错侵权法中客观性因果关系一元论主张。这一主张的具体内容是:在过错侵权责任中,作为归责体系要件之一的因果关系的主要功能在于探求并呈现案件事实上的因果链条,为责任的认定提供一个客观的基础,并以此来限制责任认定中政策性考量的任意。对于因果关系的认定只限于事实层面的考查,而不应进行价值判断与政策性考量。这里的事实性,意义有二,一是对象的事实性,二是性质的客观性。为了更好地说中心论点,文章还简要探讨了与中心论点相关的几个问题。更多还原

【Abstract】 As an important factor of the system of liability-fixation in torts law, causation is used in everyday judicial practice. But as a basic academic problem, it has been argued and longs for being settled.Focusing on the character and function, this article studies the problem of causation in different ways. After introducing the value of the causation question briefly in the preface, causation is deeply discussed in historical, philosophic, systemic and typology ways. At last, conclusion is drawn.The whole idea of this article is as below. The study of history shows the status quo of causation: the theoretical confusion about the character and function. The discussion about foundation explains what function causation can offer to the tort law: causation deals with the factual things. The theory of relationship tells what kinds of job the tort liability-fixing system need causation to do: provides the factual chain of causation, but not the policy pondering. The theory of type offers supplying argument to the factual character of causation: confirm the bound of causation by separating fault and non-fault liability, clearing up special causation sorts re-demonstrates the causation’s basic function which is providing the factual chains. The conclusion is that in fault liability monism of factual causation should be insisted, while eliminating policy pondering. In author’s opinion, the system of liability-fixing being restructured does better both in theory and practice.The first chapter is on the history of causation theory. In this chapter, the author firstly introduces the history of causation theory in the two legal systems. And the author specifically analyzes the main doctrines in common law system including the rule of but for, the rule of substantial factors, the rule of direct cause and so on; the main doctrines in civil law including the condition sine qua none, reason, adequate causation and legal aim. What’s more, the author introduces the influential theory on causation in criminal law. And then, the author turns the perspective into the theory in China. According to the history of causation theory, the author draw a conclusion that we should doubt on the dichotomy on the theory of causation, whether in civil law or common law. And in China, we are lack of philosophy, system study on causation theory.The second chapter is about the basic theories of torts law. On the basis of researching the fundamental characters of causation in torts law, this chapter aims at studying the cause theories concerned in philosophy. Firstly, the author studies the relationship between the theories of causation in philosophy and those in law. The author urges that on studying the causation in the torts law of China, the theoretic achievements about causation made in the field of philosophy should be still cleaned up totally. As the argument that differing the theories in philosophy from those in torts law and not taking the affluences of the theories of causation in philosophy into consideration when studying those in torts law as concerned, the author regards it is a kind of misunderstand resulting from the neglect and antipathy to the theories of causation in philosophy just because that the analytic system of inevitability and chanciness in philosophy fails to work in torts law. As a matter of fact, the causation of inevitability and chanciness is only one of the arguments of the causation theory in philosophy. In other words, it is only a kind of analytic path. Secondly, the author analyses three theories of consequence in philosophy which connect with those in torts law closely: theories of Hume’s, Kant’s and logical positivism (Reichenbach’ s mainly). Hume urged that there is no inevitability in the things about actuality and just regarded the causation as the conventional imagination bases on the wonted connection of used things. Hume argued, in the meanwhile, however, the causation is the most trustable way of logical reasoning about actuality. The effects of Hume’s conclusion lie in two ways. On the one hand, it broke down the myth of the inevitability of causation, which made people question the degree of actuality in the causation in torts law. On the other hand, Hume’s conclusion told us that in all the ways of logical reasoning, the causation was the most trustable one, which meant that the causation did work in the liability fixation as usual. The irresistible place of Kant’s casualty theory is his argumentation of causal relationship’s inevitability. After a seriously inspection, we find out that Kant’s inevitability is differ from Hume’s inevitability theory on the relationship between factual things. Kant’s inevitability means the contacts of real things in accordance with the inevitability of "innate causal relationship". Because of the innate causal relationship is the product of mind, so Kant turns the final foundation of causal relationship from objectivity to subjectivity. Kant’s theory of inevitability has made no contribution to the objectivity of the judgment of causal relationship. Raichenbach’s probability theory of causal relationship has made great contribution to the casualty theory in torts law. Raichenbach don’t think that there are inevitable contacts between things, but he think that we can grasp the inevitable contacts with probability theory, if the inevitable contacts is true. Raichenbach believes that we can constantly near the "ultimate frequency" by observing and summing up the probability on the combination between two things. The "ultimate frequency" is the rule of the things’ relationship. If there is no rule in the contacts of things, we lose nothing by this method. Therefore, the probability theory is the best method in grasping this contact. Under the perspective of Marxism, we can certainly accept the viewpoint of objectivity. The theory of probability provides the best way to ascertain the objective relationship. What’s more, the method of statistical probability is objective and validated. That is to say, Raichenbach’s theory sets the inevitability of causality aside, but it rebuilds the objectivity of causation. This conclusion has profound significance for the theory on causation in tort law, and provides firm philosophical ground for the tort law. In conclusion, the causation theory in philosophy provides core meaning for that in law. The objectivity in tort law is just a kind of probability, and it can’t be distracted by human’s will.The third chapter is on the relationship between causation and other factors. This chapter holds that liability fixation should be regarded as a complete system at the basis of systems theory. The reasonable liability fixation being a premise, clearing the functions of civil liability factors being an objective and functional replacement in policy pondering by other factors being an emphasis, this chapter discusses the internal and external relationship of causation.The causation problem can be divided into internal problems and the external problems by the criterion of liability factors system. In the interior, this chapter does research on the relationship among "liability fixation", negligence, damages and illegality and reaches a conclusion that other factors can completely accomplish functional replacement in policy pondering of causation. In the exterior, this chapter discusses the relationship among causation and legal policy, causation in criminal law. Causation is not a proper way in which legal policy goes into the field of liability fixation. Causation in criminal law and in civil law is the same in essence. Both of them point to the objective connection among events. To eliminate the legal policy from causation factor is favorable to accomplish validity of the verdict. Because the causation as a signboard is given up, policy pondering is easier to be supervised.The forth chapter is on the sorts of causation in tort law. In this chapter, the author firstly differentiates the causation between negligent liability and liability without fault, and then defines the field in which objective causation can be applied. In the filed of negligent liability, the author strikes to objective causation. Policy pondering should be completely eliminated from the definition of causation and make causation return to its original image. But when it comes to liability without fault, the author holds a cautious opinion. Now there are a variety of means to limit the liability, for example, illegality, limitation of compensation, comparative fault and so on, however, in one hand, the filed liability without fault covers is too wide and more new kinds of cases appear with social development, in the other hand, to eliminate policy pondering in this filed must be carefully considered due to lack of negligence which is the basic gate for policy pondering. In order to be sound, traditional dichotomy in causation can still be applied. In this section, I also discuss all kinds of special causation, for example, overlapping causation, one-selecting causation, overtaking causation, supposing causation, cumulative causation and so on. This chapter analyzes and coordinates the names and concepts of these kinds of causation. Furthermore, the author believes that study on different kinds of causation can help understand different kinds of causation links, clear up factual levels in cases and better sort out tort conduction. But this can only provide indirect help to liability fixation. Liability fixation is different due to different specific cases. This displays that "cutting off a section of causation links", that is to say liability fixation is an outcome of join forces of all factors again, not being solved by only causation. Finally, the author discusses relationship between common causation and association causation (psychological causation), defined causation and presumed causation, explanatory causation and liability fixation causation. The author holds probability theory can play a role in the psychological causation and presumed causation. As to psychological causation, the observation and statistics of people’s action to special words and deeds can provide directions to defining psychological influence in concrete cases. As to presumed causation, there are mainly two points: one is the objective causation, the other is policy pondering. The function of probability theory is embodied by one of the two points.The last chapter is conclusion. Through the discussion in the above four sections, the author brings up the idea of objective causation monism. The concrete contents of this view are as follows: in the field of negligent torts, the main function of causation as one of liability fixation factors is to seek causation link which can display cases’ fact, provide an objective basis for liability fixation and limit policy pondering arbitrarily in liability fixation. The definition of causation should be limited to factual level and can not carry merit judging and policy pondering. This actuality has two meanings: one is the actuality of the object, the other is the objective of the character.更多还原