In the question of the Liability of road administrators in injuring responsibility of traffic obstructions, In determining the principle of the responsibility imputation of road administrators, there is a debate between monism and dualism in the theoretical circles. In this regard, the behavior of people and road administrators who produce traffic obstructions should stipulated separately. That is to say, the author adopts dualism. According to the provisions of Article 89 of the Tort Liability Law of the People’s Republic of China, the principle of the responsibility imputation of road administrators should be applied no fault liability while Article 10 of Interpretation of Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in Road Traffic Accident Compensation Cases promulgated in 2012 holds that road administrators should be applied the principle of presumption of fault. In this regard, the author intends to obtain the rationality of the principle of the presumption of fault of road administrators from the perspective of the subjective imputation, the legal system, the difficulty of obtaining evidence, the balance of interests, the current judicial practice in China. In the case of the constituent elements of the responsibility of road administrators, they mainly include the fact that the road administrators don’t fulfill the management responsibility, the infringers are damaged, the causal relationship between the administrative responsibility of the road administrators and the infringers, there is subjective fault in road administrators. The author compares the cases where the infringers don’t prosecute the road administrators and the infringers can’t determine the situation. The analysis shows that the share of the road administrators’ responsibility in practice is different according to the subject that the infringers prosecute and whether there are infringers. The reasons for such a situation lie in that the basis of the responsibility of different courts is not unified. The author believes that in injuring responsibility of traffic obstructions, the behavior of road administrators and infringers should be a separate infringement, and both shall undertake liability on share. Determining the responsibility of road administrators should be based on their fault level, reasoning force of behavior and damage, and the relevant policy. Road administrators usually damage interests of others by nonfeasance, their subjective fault is small and they should bear small responsibility corresponding to the degree of fault. The fault of the road administrators is presumed, thus there is a great deal of uncertainty. And the subjective fault will be unconformable with role of the damage behavior when determining responsibility of road administrators only by the degree of the fault. It should be combined with the reasoning force to determine responsibility of road administrators. For the relationship between fault factors and reasoning force, the author believes that it should combine Fault Theory with Reasoning Force Theory. Besides, it mainly uses reasoning force supplemented by fault of road administrators, then determines the scope of responsibility through policy considerations and fair responsibility to better supervise the road administrators to fulfill their obligations.
在妨碍通行物品致人损害中道路管理者的责任问题上,对于认定道路管理者责任的归责原则, 理论界存在一元论与二元论的争论. 对此应对制造妨碍通行物的行为人与道路管理者进行分别规定, 即采二元论. 根据中国《侵权责任法》第八十九条的规定, 道路管理者侵权责任的归责原则应适用无过错责任, 而2012年颁布的《关于审理道路交通事故损害赔偿案件适用法律若干问题的解释》第十条规定道路管理者应适用过错推定归责原则. 对此, 笔者拟从主观归责性角度、取证难易程度角度、利益平衡角度、中国现行的司法实践等角度分析得出道路管理者适用过错推定原则的合理性. 就道路管理者责任承担的构成要件而言, 主要包括道路管理者未尽到管理职责、被侵权人受到损害、道路管理者未尽管理职责与被侵权人受损之间存在因果关系以及道路管理者主观存在过错等四个方面. 笔者通过对被侵权人未起诉道路管理者、侵权人无法确定等不同情形的案例进行对比, 分析得出实践中道路管理者责任承担的份额依被侵权人起诉主体的不同以及被侵权人的有无而摇摆不定, 出现该种情形的原因在于不同法院对于当事人责任承担的依据意见不统一. 笔者认为, 在妨碍通行物致害责任中, 道路管理者与侵权人之间的行为应为分别侵权行为, 二者分别对被侵权人的损害承担按份责任. 在认定道路管理者责任时应依其过错程度、行为与损害的原因力的大小以及相关的政策考量对被侵权人承担侵权责任. 因道路管理者通常以不作为的方式对他人的权益造成损害, 其主观过错程度较小, 应承担与其过错程度相应的较小责任. 又因道路管理者的过错是推定的, 有很大的不确定性, 且仅以过错程度认定道路管理者责任会出现当事人的主观过错与其行为对损害所起的作用不符的情形, 故应当结合道路管理者侵权行为的原因力的大小认定其责任. 对于过错因素与原因力的关系问题, 应当采用过错理论与原因力理论的综合运用说, 且以原因力为主, 以道路管理者的过错为辅, 并结合政策考量、公平责任等因素来认定其责任承担范围, 以更好的督促道路管理者依法履行自身义务.