On The Tort Committed By Several Persons Without Meaning Connection

Along with the development of society, persons'communication is increasingly frequent, so the torts committed by several persons occur massively. Most countries and areas stipulate the joint tort, including the joint tort in a narrow sense, the joint dangerous act, instigating and aiding infringement. Besides above mentioned torts, there is also the tort committed by several persons without meaning connection. Foreign countries and areas have no explicit stipulation on it, and scholars research it from the causal relation aspect. Scholars in China regard it as one kind of special torts and explore it along with the joint tort. The understanding of the joint tort directly determines the recognition of the tort committed by several persons without meaning connection. This correlation also manifests in the draft of civil law code and tort proposal book done by scholars.In the Supreme People's Court's"The Interpretation on the Several Issues of Law Application in Trying Physical Injury Cases"(hereafter referred to as"Interpretation"), Article 3 stipulates that,"If two or more persons cause injury with common intention or the common fault ,or the acts directly combine to give rise to one and single injury without common intention or the common fault, the joint tort is established and persons bears the joint and several liability according to Article 130 of the General Rule of Civil Law. If two or more persons'respective acts indirectly combine to cause one and single injury, they should bear corresponding compensation liability in proportion to their own fault degree and causative potency."This article expands the scope of the joint tort (hereafter referred to as the joint tort in a narrow sense) with the direct combination and indirect combination, and it divides the tort committed by several persons without meaning connection into two and put one part into the joint tort. This stipulation evokes many controversies. How to differentiate between the tort committed by several persons without meaning connection and the joint tort, and how to stipulate the liability? In this paper, the author intends to use analytical,comparative and classified methods to explore the tort committed by several persons without meaning connection.The paper divides into three chapters in the structure:Chapter 1 is the outline of the tort committed by several persons without meaning connection. On the basis of the comparative analysis of other scholars'definitions, the author brings forth the definition of the tort committed by several persons without meaning connection and analyzes its elements, and emphasizes"the identity"of the injury.Chapter 2 is the comparative analysis of the law of the tort committed by several persons without meaning connection. The author introduces the relevant rules of England, America, France, Germany, Japan, Taiwan Province of China and the European draft of tort, and appraises the scholars'doctrine about the joint tort and the provisions of the present law and draft.Chapter 3 is the type and liability assumption of the tort committed by several persons without meaning connection. The author appraises the classification pattern on the basis of the act,causal relation and injury, and agrees with the classification with the causal relation criterion, which classifies the tort committed by several persons without meaning connection into the types of the cumulative causes and combined causes, on which to analyze the liability.The last part is the conclusion of this paper. The author points out that the common fault is still the element of the joint tort, and the boundary between the joint tort and the tort committed by several persons without meaning connection. In the tort committed by several persons without meaning connection, the persons should bear the joint and several liability, but this liability is different from the joint and several liability of the joint tort, because it allows the persons to produce proof to prove their act and the injury exist no causal relation and therefore the person can bear no liability.