【摘要】 自找妨害曾是阻却受害者请求权的独立抗辩事由。然而,此种"全有或全无"的裁判遮蔽自找妨害案件的形态,造成救济方式的僵化和经济效率低下。比较法上,除美国因公共政策考虑而制定农业权法外,自找妨害的事实不构成独立免责事由,而成为容忍义务的评判因素之一。时间先后是界定当地通行做法的主要依据;在考虑防范措施的成本时应以受害者进入时的防范成本而非妨害发生时的防范成本为评判标准,激励受害者理性选择,减少自找妨害的发生。自找妨害裁判可保持一定的灵活性,更好地衡平公共利益、私人利益。当妨害超出容忍限度时,自找妨害可能构成受害者过失,从而适用《中华人民共和国侵权责任法》之过失相抵规范,减轻损害赔偿责任。更多还原

【Abstract】 Coming to the Nuisance was once an independent defense to dismiss the plaintiff’s claim. Nevertheless, this interpretation led to all-or-nothing decision and resulted in the inflexible remedy and inefficiency. Given the public policy to protect the agriculture and farmer, many states of the U.S. passed the Right to Farm Legislation. Except that legislation, Coming to the Nuisance is not accepted as an independent defense and is taken into account when evaluating the tolerance obligation. The time passage is the major element in determining the common pattern of local land use. Regarding the preventive measure, it is necessary to consider the cost to prevent the nuisance when the plaintiff came in the neighbourhood, rather than the cost to prevent the nuisance after the plaintiff’s entrance. In order to balance the private interest and the public interest, the judgment on Coming to the Nuisance may be flexible. If the nuisance is above an acceptable level, Coming to the Nuisance constitutes contributory negligence under the principle of Contributory Negligence in Tort Law of the People’s Republic of China, and the liability for damages can be mitigated.更多还原