Research On Several Issues Of The Capacity For Civil Liability Of Natural Person

The capacity for civil liability, as an important concept, relates not only tothe theories and systems of the civil law, but also to the identifications of thesubjects and the allocations of liability. However, the scope of the study on thisissue is not deep enough. Yet, there are several competing doctrines about thebasic problems, such as the connotation of the capacity, the status in the civillaw system, the relationship with the capacity of civil conduct, the criteria ofthe capacity of natural person. With the analysis and comments on thosedoctrines, this article will make a further discuss about this issue.This article contains three parts:In the first part, I address the connotation and the basis of the system ofthe issue. There are several competing doctrines about the connotation. Theextensive version of the capacity for the civil conduct, which is a traditionaldoctrine, has discarded as the time passed. The main points now focus on theconflict of the capacity for the illegitimacy conduct and the capacity for torts,the distinctions of which are whether include the liability of the contract, theunjust enrichment, the voluntary service, besides the capacity for torts. Byfurther analyzing the doctrines above, I access the view that the capacity forthe civil liability is equal to the capacity for torts. As developing from thedoctrine of negligence, the concept of the capacity for civil liability leaves nospace in the fields of the equitable liability and no-fault liability.The second part is about the relationship of the capacity for civil liabilityand the capacity for civil conduct. There are three points: (1) to replace thecapacity for civil liability with the capacity for civil conduct;(2) to include thecapacity for civil liability in the capacity for civil conduct;(3) to treat thecapacity for civil liability as an independent mechanism. Through theanalyzing of those views, I conclude that we should acknowledge the status ofthe capacity for civil liability in the civil law system, as an independentmechanism, and further argue the distinctions in the purposes, the characters,the criteria, and address the crucial senses of the distinctions on the research ofthe civil law theory, the legislative system.The third part analyses the criteria of the capacity for civil liability, whichis directly related to the law-making. Firstly, the article studies on the threelegislative patterns abroad: (1) standards of birth (represented by NapoléonCode);(2) standards of capacity for civil conduct (represented by the RussianFederation Civil Code);(3) standards of discernment (represented by theGerman Civil Code). Then, I prove that the German pattern is much betterthan the others. Secondly, the article argues the unreasonable logic of thedualistic standard, the wealth and conduct ability standard, and provide somesuggestions to the draft of the civil code in our country.