Common Risk Behavior Study

Joint dangerous act is an important system of tort act. With the development of the society, there are many new sorts of act of tort. This brings new challenges to joint dangerous act in the traditional civil law theory. The existence of joint dangerous act extends from general tort field to special tort field. The traditional theory of joint dangerous act can not be applied to joint dangerous act of the special tort field. There are many disputes on theory in the traditional joint dangerous act. In the new background, this creates more confusion on people's knowledge about joint dangerous act. Moreover, most present scholars research mainly on traditional general tort filed. We should comb out joint dangerous act theory again to settle concerned disputes. Meanwhile, we should research on joint dangerous act in both general tort field and special tort field. Only if can the system of joint dangerous act play a role better.When discussing problems of joint dangerous act, this paper centers on two main features of joint dangerous act, "dubious inflicters" and "constructive causality", closely. At the same time, joint dangerous act contains joint dangerous act in both general tort and special tort according to this paper. Discussion in this paper is based on above knowledge. The aim of this paper is to try to research joint dangerous act in both general tort and special tort, giving some new ideas to attract good researches by considering existing disputes. Except the quotation and conclusion, there are five parts of this paper. They are the summary of joint dangerous act, constitutive requirements of joint dangerous act and its liability, the liability fixation of joint dangerous act, the liability and exemption for joint dangerous act and the existing laws and its evaluation of our country.In the chapter one, this paper summarizes the system of joint dangerous act. Firstly, the utmost important difference between joint dangerous act and joint trespass act is exact inflicters are dubious. The number of exact inflicters is one or more. Secondly, joint dangerous act has its own particular features: There are multiple act subjects and whether natural persons have capacity to act or not will not affect the establishment of joint dangerous act; The "common" of joint dangerous act is not "same time" and "same place", but the possibility of the same damage; created by joint dangerous act. Inflicters is dubious ,which decides the position which law uses to solve these disputes. Finally, although two doctrines are reasonable according to the difference and general characters of two systems, the author tends to determine the origin of joint dangerous act according to the general characters of the two systems.In the chapter two, the author discusses the constitutive requirements of joint dangerous act and its liability. In the author's opinion, the constitutive requirements of joint dangerous act and joint dangerous act liability are two different conceptions. The constitutive requirements of joint dangerous act contain dangerous actions of actors, no common fault among actors and damage created by actors without definite inflicters. For joint dangerous act liability, there are different constitutive requirements in different fields. In the general tort filed, it is better to accept "three requirements", that is, wrongful act, facts of damage and causality between wrongful act and facts of damage. While in special tort field, it is better to accept "two requirements", that is, facts of damage and causality between act and facts of damage.In the chapter three, this paper discusses the liability fixation of joint dangerous act. From the viewpoint of the author, the existing doctrines of the liability fixation have some problems more or less. The liability fixation of joint dangerous act should be plural. Therefore, dubious inflicters and balancing of interest are the liability fixation. Every aspect is mutual, forming a whole. In the author's opinion, the doctrine of liability is not single. It is unreasonable to take single doctrine or make two kinds of principles up simply. We should consider exact facts: In general tort field, for actors have their own fault, it takes doctrine of liability for wrongs. In special tort field, no matter whether actors have fault or not, if laws provide doctrine of no-fault liability, it takes this principle. That is to say that both doctrine of liability for wrongs and doctrine of no-fault liability are doctrines of liability fixation of joint dangerous act, presumptive wrongs belonging to doctrine of liability for wrongs.In the chapter four, the author discusses liability and exemption for joint dangerous act. Traditional civil law provides joint and several liability for actors. American court created "market share liability". Young scholars advanced "revised share liability". From the viewpoint of the author, both joint and several liability and "market share liability" have shortcomings. "Revised share liability" not only can protect a victim utmost but also can affect actors lightly. So it is the best way to bear responsibility. Inside, when all actors have fault, everyone bears responsibility equally; when all actors have no fault, they bear responsibility equally; when some actors have fault while others have not, wrongful actors bear main responsibility and innocent ones bear minor responsibility. Every kind of actors bear equal responsibility severally. There are two kinds of doctrines about exemption when an actor can prove that he is not the exact inflicter, affirmative doctrine and negative doctrine. By comparison, the author accepts affirmative doctrine.In the chapter five, this paper discusses existing laws about joint dangerous act in our country and evaluates them simply. These regulations cover gaps in law. This provides legislative authority for our courts to deal with joint dangerous act. At the same time, existing regulations don't enact phenomena, encroaching on property right by joint dangerous act, which needs to be made perfect.