专业团队

一般侵权责任如何构成

构成特殊侵权损害赔偿责任，在无过错责任原则情况下，可以不具备过错的要件;在过错推定原则情况下，仍然要具备四个要件，但过错要件是推定的，而不要求被侵权人举证证明。

一、违法行为

违法行为，是自然人或者法人以及其他组织违反法律规定，从而给被侵权人以及社会造成损害的行为。违法行为作为法律事实，具有以下几个特征：

1、违法行为是个人或社会组织的一种特定的活动。不是人或组织的一切活动都是构成违法的条件，只有行为才是，例如思维活动也是人的一种活动，但却不是法律意义上的行为，因而不构成违法。

2、违法行为是达到法律规定的一定年龄，从而有责任能力，能够认识、控制自己行为的人以及具有法人资格的社会组织的行为。

3、违法行为是违反法律要求的行为，包括有某种特定的义务而不履行，滥用权利，违反法律禁止等。

4、行为人主观上具有故意或过失。只有具备以上四个特征的行为，才是违法行为。

违法行为有两种形式：一是作为的违法行为，凡是法律所禁止的行为，如果违反法律而作为，便是作为的违法行为。例如，法律禁止侵害公共财产，行为人违反这一规定损害下公共财产，就是作为的违法行为，应当承担损害赔偿的民事责任。二是不作为的违法行为。凡是法律要求人们在某种情况下必须作出某种行为时，如果负有这种义务的人不履行其义务，便是不作为的违法行为，对造成的损害，应当承担损害赔偿的责任。例如，清理完马路边的窨井应当盖好盖子，这是清洁工职责要求的义务。某清洁工在清理窨井之后忘记盖好，孙某晚上骑自行车上夜校，连人带车跌入井内，身体和车子都造成了损害。该清洁工没盖好窨井盖子的行为，就是不作为的违法行为，对造成的人身和财产的损害，不作为的行为人都应当承担赔偿责任。不作为违法行为的前提，是行为人负有某种特定作为义务。特定法律义务的来源主要有三种：一是来自法律的直接规定，二是来自职务上或者业务上的要求，三是来自行为人先前的行为。例如，《婚姻法》第23条规定父母有管教未成年子女的义务，这是来自法律的直接规定。类似清洁工不盖窨井井盖的行为，义务的来源是业务的要求。如果某成年人带一个未成年人进入江河游泳，他的这一行为就产生了保护这一未成年人安全的义务，这是第三种来源。

违法，是指行为在客观上与法律规定相悖，主要表现为违反法定义务、违反保护他人的法律和故意违背善良风俗致人损害。

1、违反法定义务。违反法定义务，是对法律规定的法定义务的不履行。主要表现为两种形式：一是绝对权的义务人违反其不可侵义务。自然人、法人作为绝对权法律关系中的义务主体，就是对他人享有的绝对权利负有义务的义务人，根据该法律关系负有不可侵的法定义务。如果该义务人侵害权利人的绝对权利，即违反了该法定的不可侵义务，构成违法性。二是相对权的第三人违反其不可侵义务。对于相对权即债权，按照债权相对性原则，本来只约束债权关系的双方当事人，并不约束债权关系之外的第三人。但是，第三人虽然不受债权债务关系的约束，却依据债权的不可侵原则，也负有不得侵害他人债权的义务。违反债权的不可侵义务，也构成违反法定义务的违法性。

2、违反保护他人的法律。法律所保护的利益，称之为法益。对于某一民事主体的法益，其他民事主体虽然与其并不构成权利义务关系，但是依据《民法通则》第5条的规定，也负有不可侵义务。任何人对法律保护的利益(法益)违反不可侵义务，侵害他人享有的法益，也构成违法。

3、故意违背善良风俗致人损害。违背善良风俗的违法性，本为不当，当故意以其为方法而加害他人时，构成违法，故学说及有的立法例认其为不法。《民法通则》第7条规定的“社会公德”，就包含善良风俗的内容。一般认为，行为既不违反法定义务，亦不违反保护他人的法律，但故意违背社会公德即善良风俗而直接或间接加害于他人，亦构成违法。

上述三种违法方式，依据性质可分为两种。一是形式违法，包括违反法定义务和违反保护他人的法律两种违法，在形式上就违反法律;二是实质违法，即故意违背善良风俗，这种行为在形式上并不违法，但是在实质上是违法的。

二、损害事实

侵权损害赔偿的民事责任以损害事实的客观存在为前提，损害事实的客观存在，是侵权损害赔偿法律关系赖以发生的根据。也就是说，赔偿责任只有在造成了实际损害的条件下，才能发生。如果仅有违法行为而无损害的结果，那么，侵权损害赔偿的民事责任是无从产生的。

按照我国《侵权责任法》第16条、第19条和第22条的规定，可以把损害事实分为以下三种类型。

(一)人身损害事实

人身损害事实，是指侵害身体权、健康权、生命权所造成的损害事实。在通常情况下，人身损害事实是侵权人的不法行为侵害他人的身体权、健康权、生命权，使被侵权人伤残或死亡，并且造成了被侵权人及其亲属的财产损失，或者没有造成被侵权人身体上的伤害，但使被侵权人的精神利益受到损害的事实。

人身损害事实还包括以下两种特别情况：第一，在造成人身损害发生的财产损失之外，还造成了被侵权人的精神痛苦损害，因此，精神痛苦的损害也是人身损害事实。第二，侵害身体权的损害事实，多数不具有财产损失的后果，但侵害身体权造成精神痛苦的损害，也是人身损害事实。

(二)精神损害事实

精神损害事实包括损害姓名权、肖像权、名称权、名誉权、信用权、荣誉权、人身自由权、隐私权、性自主权等精神性人格权以及身份权造成的损害事实。这种损害也叫做人身无形损害，习惯上叫做精神损害，是侵权人的不法行为侵害了公民的肖像权、姓名权，名誉权、信用权、荣誉权、人身自由权、隐私权、性自主权以及身份权，或者法人的名称权、名誉权、荣誉权等人格权，而使被侵权人受到精神利益的损害。

精神损害分为两种情况：

(1)造成财产损失的，如某甲为报复某乙而在评工资时对乙进行了诽谤，致使乙的工资没有得到提升;又如甲厂以劣质产品假冒乙厂的名牌产品，造成恶劣影响，乙厂为挽回影响而支出的广告费和宣传费。

(2)虽没有造成财产损失但造成了精神利益损害且情节严重的，例如，某甲捏造事实，以小字报进行宣传，致使被侵权人名誉受到严重影响，精神受到严重折磨。这两种情况都是精神损害事实。

(三)财产损害事实

财产权利的损害也叫财产损害事实，是指侵权人的不法行为侵害他人所有的财物以及其他财产权利，致使被侵权人的财产或者财产利益遭到损坏或毁灭的损害事实。直接损失是被侵权人(包括自然人和法人)现有财产的减少，间接损失就是可得利益的减少。

三、因果关系

原因和结果是唯物辩证法的一对基本范畴。这对范畴以及因果关系概念反映的是事物、现象之间的相互联系、相互制约的普遍形式之一。侵权民事责任构成中的因果关系要件，就是侵权法中的因果关系。它指的是违法行为作为原因，损害事实作为结果，在它们之间存在的前者引起后果、后者被前者所引起的客观联系。

在我国的侵权法理论中，确定行为与结果之间的因果关系，既应当借鉴国外的因果关系理论的经验，又要根据我国的具体情况，确立我国的因果关系规则。

(一)直接原因规则

行为与结果之间具有直接因果关系的，无需再适用其他因果关系理论判断，直接确认其具有因果关系。最常见的直接原因，就是一因一果的因果关系类型。一个原因行为出现，引起了一个损害结果的发生，这种因果关系极为简单，容易判断。在这样的情况下，再作其他的判断，是舍-本求末。

(二)相当因果关系规则

这种理论也称为适当条件说。这种学说认为，某一事实仅于现实情形发生某种结果，尚不能就认为有因果关系，必须在一般情形，依社会的一般观察，亦认为能发生同一结果的时候，才能认为有因果关系。侵权人伤害他人之后，将被侵权人送去医院治疗，不幸医院失火，致被侵权人烧死。这里的伤害与烧死就现实情形而言，固然不能说没有关系，但医院失火属于意外，依一般情况，不具有相当因果关系。如果伤害后患破伤风以致死亡，则在一般情形依通常经验观察，能致死亡，故其伤害行为与死亡结果之间有因果关系。

适用相当因果关系规则，关键在于掌握违法行为是发生损害事实的适当条件。适当条件是发生该种损害结果的不可缺条件，它不仅是在特定情形下偶然引起的损害，而且是一般发生同种结果的有利条件。确定行为与结果之间有无因果关系，要依行为时的一般社会经验和知识水平作为判断标准，认为该行为有引起该损害结果的可能性，而在实际上该行为又确实引起了该损害结果，则该行为与该结果之间有因果关系。判断违法行为与损害结果之间具有是否相当因果关系，可以适用以下公式：大前提：依据一般的社会经验，该种行为能够引起该种损害结果;小前提：在现实中，该种行为确实引起了该种损害结果;结论：那么，该种行为是该种损害事实发生的适当条件，因而，二者之间具有相当因果关系。

(三)推定因果关系规则

推定因果关系说，也叫做盖然性因果关系说，是在原告和被告之间分配证明因果关系的举证责任的理论。其基本规则是，盖然性就是可能性。在特定的场合，可以适用推定因果关系规则认定因果关系。盖然性因果关系，就是一种推定因果关系，其基本要点是保护弱者，在被侵权人处于弱势，没有办法完全证明因果关系要件的时候，只要被侵权人举证证明到一定的程度，就推定行为与损害之间存在因果关系，然后由被告负责举证，证明自己的行为与损害的发生之间没有因果关系。

因果关系推定的适用方法如下：

(1)分清违法行为与损害事实的时间顺序。作为原因的违法行为必定在前，作为结果的损害事实必须在后。违背这一时间顺序性特征的，为无因果关系。

(2)区分违法行为与损害事实之间是否存在客观的、合乎规律的联系。在案件中，如果违法行为与损害结果之间存在盖然性联系，则应解释为在法律上存在因果关系。盖然性因果联系的证明责任还应当是由被侵权人承担。法官根据所积累的情况证明，如果可以作出与有关科学无矛盾的说明，即应当解释为法律上的因果关系得到了证明。其推定形式如下：大前提：在一般情况下，这类行为能够造成这类损害;小前提：这一结论与有关科学原理无矛盾;结论：那么，这种损害事实是由这种行为造成的。

(3)由于这种因果关系是推定的，因而，还应当在损害事实与违法行为之间排除其他可能性。当确定这种损害事实没有由任何其他原因所致的可能时，即可断定该种违法行为是损害事实的原因，即推是因果关系成立。

实行因果关系推定，就意味着被侵权人在因果关系的要件上不必承担过重的证明责任，只是在证明了因果关系的盖然性之后，就由法官实行推定。

因果关系推定适用的范围是：

(1)环境污染责任。《侵权责任法》第66条规定：“因环境污染发生纠纷，污染者应当就法律规定的不承担责任或者减轻责任的情形及其行为与损害之间不存在因果关系承担举证责任。”

(2)其他有法律规定的情形。

(3)其他有必要适用因果关系推定的案件，例如在高科技领域中侵权责任的认定也可以适用因果关系推定。

四、主观过错

主观过错，是指侵权人在实施侵权行为时对于损害后果的主观心理状态。过错分为两种基本形态，即故意和过失。

1、故意。是行为人预见自己行为的结果，仍然希望它发生或者听任它发生的主观心理状态。确定故意，在侵权法理论上有意思主义和观念主义之争。意思主义强调故意必须有行为人对损害后果的“希望”或“意欲”，观念主义强调行为人认识或预见到行为的后果。这两种主张中，意思主义比观念主义要求更严。对此，应当采用折中主义的主张，即行为人应当认识或者预见到行为的结果，同时又希望或听任其发生。在侵权法中，故意也包括直接故意和间接故意两种故意形式。其实有一个最简单的类比，就是过失都能够构成侵权责任，故意当然比过失的过错程度更重，肯定也应当构成侵权责任。

2、过失。包括疏忽和懈怠。行为人对自己行为的结果，应当预见或者能够预见而没有预见，为疏忽;行为人对自己行为的结果虽然预见了却轻信可以避免，为懈怠。疏忽和懈怠，都是过失，都是被侵权人对应负的注意义务的违反。因此，民法上的过失，就是行为人对被侵权人应负注意义务的疏忽或懈怠。换言之，正如台湾学者指出的那样：“过失者，行为人对于自己的行为，所生一定之结果，如为相当之注意，即可避免，而欠缺此注意之心理状态也。

主观过错程度有轻重之分，是人所共知的。但对于主观过错的轻重与侵权责任的关系，传统学说一直认为：“区分故意与过失，在刑法上对于定罪量刑具有重要意义，而在民法上，一般情况下，对于确定行为人的民事责任并无实际意义。因为民事责任的承担，完全是根据损害事实决定的，行为人故意造成他人伤害与过失造成他人伤害在民事责任的承担上是完全一样的。”这种观念并不完全准确。就法律的一般情形而言，这种意见是正确的;但是在法律有特别规定和共同过错、与有过失及第三人过错的情况下，过错程度的轻重对于确定民事责任具有决定性的作用。

How to constitute general tort liability

Under the principle of no fault liability, the liability for special infringement damages may not meet the requirements of fault; Under the principle of presumption of fault, four elements still need to be met, but the element of fault is presumed and does not require the victim to provide evidence to prove it.

1、 Illegal behavior

Illegal behavior refers to the behavior of natural persons, legal persons, and other organizations that violate legal provisions and cause harm to the infringed party and society. As a legal fact, illegal acts have the following characteristics:

1. Illegal behavior is a specific activity of an individual or social organization. Not all activities of a person or organization are conditions that constitute illegality, only behavior is. For example, thinking is also an activity of a person, but it is not a legal act and therefore does not constitute illegality.

2. Illegal behavior refers to the behavior of individuals who have reached a certain age stipulated by law, have the ability to be responsible, understand and control their own behavior, and social organizations with legal personality.

3. Illegal behavior refers to behavior that violates legal requirements, including failure to fulfill specific obligations, abuse of rights, violation of legal prohibitions, etc.

4. The perpetrator subjectively has intention or negligence. Only behaviors that possess the above four characteristics are considered illegal.

There are two forms of illegal behavior: one is the act of illegal behavior. Any behavior prohibited by law that violates the law is considered an act of illegal behavior. For example, the law prohibits infringement of public property. If the perpetrator violates this provision and damages public property, it is considered an illegal act and should bear civil liability for damages compensation. The second is the illegal act of inaction. Whenever the law requires people to perform certain actions under certain circumstances, if the person who bears such obligations fails to fulfill their obligations, it is an illegal act of inaction. The person who causes damage should bear the responsibility for compensation. For example, after cleaning the manhole on the roadside, it is the duty of a cleaner to cover it properly. After cleaning the manhole, a certain cleaner forgot to cover it properly. Sun rode his bike to night school at night and even fell into the well with his car, causing damage to both his body and car. The behavior of the cleaner who did not cover the manhole cover properly is an illegal act of inaction, and the person who did not do so should bear the liability for compensation for any personal and property damage caused. The prerequisite for not engaging in illegal acts is that the perpetrator has a specific obligation to act. There are three main sources of specific legal obligations: first, direct provisions from the law, second, requirements from the position or business, and third, previous actions of the actor. For example, Article 23 of the Marriage Law stipulates that parents have the obligation to discipline their underage children, which is a direct provision from the law. Similar to the behavior of cleaners not covering manhole covers, the source of obligation is the requirements of the business. If an adult takes a minor into a river for swimming, their behavior creates an obligation to protect the safety of the minor, which is the third source.

Illegality refers to behavior that objectively contradicts legal provisions, mainly manifested as violating legal obligations, violating laws to protect others, and intentionally violating good customs and causing harm to others.

1. Violation of legal obligations. Violation of statutory obligations is a failure to fulfill the statutory obligations stipulated by law. It mainly manifests in two forms: first, the obligor of absolute power violates its inviolable obligation. Natural persons and legal entities, as subjects of absolute rights in legal relationships, are obligated individuals who have absolute rights enjoyed by others and have inviolable legal obligations according to this legal relationship. If the obligor infringes upon the absolute rights of the rights holder, that is, violates the statutory inviolability obligation, it constitutes illegality. The second is that the third party of relative rights violates their inviolable obligations. For relative rights, which refer to creditor's rights, according to the principle of creditor's rights relativity, originally only the parties involved in the creditor's rights relationship were bound, and not the third party outside the creditor's rights relationship. However, although third parties are not bound by the relationship between creditor and debtor, they also have the obligation not to infringe upon the creditor's rights of others based on the principle of inviolability of creditor's rights. Violating the inviolable obligation of creditor's rights also constitutes the illegality of violating legal obligations.

2. Violation of laws protecting others. The interests protected by the law are called legal interests. For the legal interests of a certain civil subject, although other civil subjects do not form a rights and obligations relationship with it, according to Article 5 of the General Principles of Civil Law, they also have inviolable obligations. Anyone who violates an inviolable obligation to protect the interests (legal interests) protected by the law and infringes upon the legal interests enjoyed by others also constitutes illegality.

3. Intentionally violating good customs and causing harm to others. The illegality of violating good customs is inherently inappropriate. When intentionally using it as a means to harm others, it constitutes illegality. Therefore, theories and some legislative examples recognize it as illegal. Article 7 of the General Principles of Civil Law stipulates that "social morality" includes the content of good customs. It is generally believed that behavior does not violate legal obligations or laws that protect others, but intentionally violating social morality, such as good customs, and directly or indirectly harming others also constitutes illegality.

The above three illegal methods can be divided into two types based on their nature. One is formal illegality, which includes two types of illegality: violating legal obligations and violating laws to protect others. In form, it violates the law; The second is substantive illegality, that is, intentionally violating good customs. This behavior is not illegal in form, but it is illegal in substance.

2、 Damage facts

The civil liability for infringement compensation is based on the objective existence of the fact of damage, which is the basis for the occurrence of the legal relationship of infringement compensation. That is to say, compensation liability can only occur under conditions that have caused actual damage. If there is only illegal behavior without any harmful consequences, then the civil liability for compensation for infringement damages cannot be generated.

According to Article 16, Article 19, and Article 22 of China's Tort Liability Law, the facts of damage can be classified into the following three types.

（1） Fact of personal injury

The fact of personal injury refers to the damage caused by the infringement of the right to the body, health, and life. In normal circumstances, the fact of personal injury refers to the fact that the infringer's illegal behavior infringes on the physical, health, and life rights of others, causing disability or death to the infringed person, and causing property damage to the infringed person and their relatives, or not causing physical injury to the infringed person, but causing damage to the spiritual interests of the infringed person.

The fact of personal injury also includes the following two special situations: firstly, in addition to the property damage caused by personal injury, it also causes mental pain damage to the infringed party. Therefore, mental pain damage is also a fact of personal injury. Secondly, the fact that the infringement of physical rights often does not have the consequences of property damage, but the damage caused by the infringement of physical rights resulting in mental pain is also a fact of personal injury.

（2） Facts of mental damage

The facts of mental damage include the damage caused to the rights of name, portrait, name, reputation, credit, honor, personal freedom, privacy, sexual autonomy, and other mental personality rights, as well as the damage caused by identity rights. This kind of damage is also known as intangible damage to the person, commonly known as mental damage. It is the illegal behavior of the infringer that infringes on the citizen's right to portrait, name, reputation, credit, honor, personal freedom, privacy, sexual autonomy, and identity, or the personality rights of the legal person, such as name, reputation, honor, etc., causing the infringed person to suffer damage to their mental interests.

Mental damage can be divided into two situations:

(1) Causing property damage, such as A defaming B during salary evaluation in retaliation for B, resulting in B's salary not being increased; For example, if Factory A counterfeits the branded products of Factory B with inferior products, causing a negative impact, Factory B incurs advertising and publicity expenses to recover the impact.

(2) Although it did not cause any property damage, it resulted in serious damage to mental interests. For example, a certain party fabricated facts and promoted them through small character posters, causing serious damage to the reputation and mental suffering of the infringed party. Both of these situations are facts of mental damage.

（3） Property damage facts

The damage to property rights, also known as property damage facts, refers to the fact that the infringer's illegal behavior infringes on the property and other property rights of others, causing damage or destruction to the property or property interests of the infringed party. Direct loss refers to the reduction of existing property of the infringed party (including natural persons and legal persons), while indirect loss refers to the reduction of available benefits.

3、 Causal relationship

Reason and result are a pair of fundamental categories in dialectical materialism. This pair of categories and the concept of causal relationships reflect one of the universal forms of interconnection and mutual restraint between things and phenomena. The causal relationship element in the composition of civil liability for infringement is the causal relationship in tort law. It refers to the objective connection between illegal behavior as the cause and the fact of damage as the result, where the former causes consequences and the latter is caused by the former.

In the theory of tort law in our country, determining the causal relationship between behavior and result should not only draw on the experience of foreign causal relationship theories, but also establish causal relationship rules based on the specific situation in our country.

（1） Direct Cause Rule

If there is a direct causal relationship between behavior and outcome, there is no need to apply other causal relationship theories to directly confirm its causal relationship. The most common direct cause is the type of causal relationship between cause and effect. The occurrence of a causal behavior that leads to a harmful outcome is extremely simple and easy to determine. In such a situation, making other judgments is to discard the original and find the end.

（2） Equivalent causal relationship rule

This theory is also known as the theory of appropriate conditions. This theory holds that a certain fact cannot be considered to have a causal relationship unless it has a certain result in the actual situation. It can only be considered to have a causal relationship when the same result can occur in a general situation, according to the general observation of society. After the infringer harmed others, the victim was sent to the hospital for treatment. Unfortunately, the hospital caught fire, causing the victim to be burned to death. In terms of the actual situation, the injury and burning here cannot be said to be unrelated, but a hospital fire is an accident and generally does not have a significant causal relationship. If a person suffers from tetanus and dies after injury, it can cause death according to normal experience observation, so there is a causal relationship between their injury behavior and the result of death.

The key to applying the causal relationship rule is to grasp that the illegal act is an appropriate condition for the occurrence of harm. Appropriate conditions are indispensable for the occurrence of such damage results, which are not only accidental damages caused in specific circumstances, but also favorable conditions for the general occurrence of the same type of result. To determine whether there is a causal relationship between behavior and outcome, the general social experience and knowledge level at the time of the behavior should be used as the judgment criteria. If it is believed that the behavior has the possibility of causing the harmful outcome, and in reality, the behavior has indeed caused the harmful outcome, then there is a causal relationship between the behavior and the outcome. The following formula can be used to determine whether there is a significant causal relationship between illegal behavior and damage results: the general premise is that, based on general social experience, such behavior can cause such damage results; Minor premise: In reality, this behavior has indeed caused this kind of damage result; Conclusion: Therefore, this behavior is an appropriate condition for the occurrence of such damage, and there is a considerable causal relationship between the two.

（3） Inference of causal relationship rules

The theory of presumed causal relationship, also known as the theory of probable causal relationship, is a theory that allocates the burden of proof to prove causal relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant. The basic rule is that probability is possibility. In specific situations, causal relationship rules can be applied to determine causal relationships. Probabilistic causal relationship is a type of presumed causal relationship, whose basic point is to protect the weak. When the victim is in a weak position and cannot fully prove the elements of causal relationship, as long as the victim provides evidence to a certain extent, it is presumed that there is a causal relationship between the behavior and the damage. The defendant is responsible for providing evidence to prove that there is no causal relationship between their behavior and the occurrence of the damage.

The applicable methods for causal relationship inference are as follows:

(1) Distinguish the chronological order between illegal behavior and damage facts. The illegal act as a cause must come first, and the fact of damage as a result must come second. Those who violate this temporal sequence characteristic are considered to have no causal relationship.

 (2) Distinguish whether there is an objective and regular connection between illegal behavior and the fact of damage. In a case, if there is a probable connection between the illegal act and the result of the damage, it should be interpreted as having a causal relationship in law. The burden of proof for the probable causal relationship should also be borne by the infringed party. Based on the accumulated information, the judge proves that if an explanation that is not contradictory to the relevant science can be made, it should be interpreted as proving the legal causal relationship. The presumed form is as follows: the general premise is that such behavior can cause such damage in general circumstances; Minor premise: This conclusion is not contradictory to relevant scientific principles; Conclusion: So, this kind of damage is actually caused by this behavior.

(3) As this causal relationship is presumed, other possibilities should also be excluded between the fact of harm and the illegal act. When it is determined that the fact of damage is not likely caused by any other reason, it can be concluded that the illegal act is the cause of the damage, that is, the causal relationship is established.

The implementation of causal relationship presumption means that the infringed party does not have to bear excessive burden of proof on the elements of causal relationship. Only after proving the probability of causal relationship, the judge will carry out the presumption.

The scope of application of causal relationship inference is:

(1) Environmental pollution responsibility. Article 66 of the Tort Liability Law stipulates: "In the event of a dispute arising from environmental pollution, the polluter shall bear the burden of proof for the circumstances stipulated by law, such as non liability or reduced liability, and the absence of a causal relationship between their actions and the damage."

(2) Other situations with legal provisions.

(3) Other cases where it is necessary to apply the presumption of causality, such as the determination of tort liability in the high-tech field, can also apply the presumption of causality.

4、 Subjective fault

Subjective fault refers to the subjective psychological state of the infringer towards the consequences of the infringement when committing the infringement. Fault can be divided into two basic forms, namely intent and negligence.

1. Intentionally. It is the subjective psychological state in which the actor foresees the outcome of their behavior and still hopes or allows it to occur. In the theory of tort law, there is a debate between intentionalism and idealism in determining intent. Intentionalism emphasizes that intention must have the actor's "hope" or "desire" for the consequences of harm, while idealism emphasizes that the actor recognizes or foresees the consequences of the action. Among these two propositions, voluntarism is more demanding than idealism. In this regard, a compromise approach should be adopted, which means that the actor should recognize or foresee the consequences of the behavior, while also hoping or allowing it to occur. In tort law, intent also includes two forms of intent: direct intent and indirect intent. In fact, there is a simplest analogy, which is that negligence can constitute tort liability. Intention is certainly more serious than negligence and should also constitute tort liability.

2. Negligence. Including negligence and negligence. Negligence is considered when the perpetrator should have foreseen or could have foreseen the consequences of their actions but did not anticipate them; The perpetrator, although foreseeing the consequences of their actions, can be easily avoided by being complacent. Negligence and negligence are both negligence and a violation of the duty of care that the infringed party should bear. Therefore, negligence in civil law refers to the negligence or negligence of the perpetrator in fulfilling the duty of care towards the infringed party. In other words, as pointed out by Taiwanese scholars, "the negligent person is a psychological state where the perpetrator can avoid certain consequences of their own behavior if they pay sufficient attention to it.".

The degree of subjective fault varies in severity and is well known. But regarding the relationship between the severity of subjective fault and tort liability,