| 摘要: |
| 《民法典》沿袭原《侵权责任法》有关高空抛物侵权连带的归责方式，但该制度的深层学理争议从未平息。“正义”和“仁爱”这两个道德价值可以为这一争论提供更为清晰和严格的概念框架，来收敛和重构诸多主张并展开更为深入的讨论。从正义的角度看，连带归责导致温和的不正义，个人归责则导致严重的不正义；从仁爱的角度看，连带归责可以在有效防止未来损害的同时填补现有损害，而个人归责无法实现这两种福祉改善的效果。从无辜者个人视角看，国家强制分散财产损害之举虽然并不满足正义的完备要求，但依然可以得到正当性辩护。这一辩护也将为司法实践中赔偿金额的上下限设定提供有力的合理解说。 |
| 关键词: 正义、仁爱、高空抛物、连带责任、正当性辩护 |
| DOI： |
| 分类号: |
| 基金项目: |
|
| The Dual Concern of Justice and Benevolence： A Justification of Several Liability Scheme of High-Floor Projectiles |
|
Wang Linghao
|
|
|
| Abstract: |
| The Civil Code follows the several-liability scheme of the original Tort Liability Law concerning high-floor projectiles， but the deep theoretical disputes of this arrangement have never been resolved． The moral values of “justice” and “benevolence” can provide a clearer and more rigorous conceptual framework for these disputes． It will reconstruct many claims and thus may shed new light on this debate． From the perspective of justice， several liability leads to mild injustice， while individual liability leads to serious injustice． From the perspective of benevolence， several liability can effectively prevent future damage and compensate for existing damage as well， while individual liability cannot achieve these two effects of welfare improvement． From the viewpoint of the innocent individual， the state's compulsory dispersion of property damage does not fully meet the requirements of justice, but it can still be justified． This defense will also provide a powerful and reasonable explanation for the upper and lower limits of compensation in judicial practice． |
| Key words: Justice, Benevolence, High Floor Projectiles, Several Liability, Public Justification |
