Research On The Behavior Of Abetting And Helping Tort

Abetting and helping tort is one special type of joint Tort. The abetting and helping tort isrefers to a person based on the fault to others for implementing the abetting behavior orhelping behavior, prompting the instigated person or help the implementation of theinfringement, and eventually caused the victim’s damage. Although our country law "Thegeneral principles of the civil law views" article148and "The tort liability act" article9forabetting, help tort rules, But specific interoperability is not strong, the legal rules is stillunclear, and theoretical research is relatively insufficient, combined with the abettingbehavior and helping behavior is widespread in real life, decide how to identified abettingtort behavior and helping tort behavior, and how to share of the responsibility between theabetting people, helping people and conductors is a problem in front of us, this article mainlyfrom the overview of abetting behavior and helping behavior, and the key research the issuesof share the responsibility between the abetting people and helping people.The article is divided into four parts to research.The first part is the overview of abetting tort and helping tort. Abetting tort is that thebehavior use language to urge, persuade others and stimulate, prompting others to implementthe infringing act.the implementation of teaching behavior should be instigated as positive,and the subjective is intentional. Helping behavior is to point to by providing tools, indicatingthe target or to provide emotional support to assist the offender’s behavior, helping behavior isdifferent from the behavior of abetting, and helping behavior can be positive as the first, alsocan be negative inaction, if not an obligation to help people to implement lead to harmfulconsequences, and can also be set up to help. Because of abetting behavior and helpingbehavior is dependent on the direct behavior existence, so its properties; Also abettingbehavior and helping behavior to promote the implementation of the infringement behavior,therefore, is to promote. For abetting tort and helping tort the, the provisions of the countriesare different, this article puts abetting tort and helping tort in the joint tort system to research,and for the second part of the article paving.The second part of the article expounds the components of abetting behavior and helpingbehavior. Abetting tort and helping tort as a kind of joint tort, inevitably has the generalconstitutive requirements of joint tort, but as a special joint tort, its constitutive requirementsare different. First of all, there is a direct implementation of behavior, only the abetted person and the helped person to implement the tort behavior, the abetting tort and helping tort isexistence; Second, the result of direct tort behavior, and the result of abetting behavior andhelping behavior must be same, the damage by their behavior is a complete, indivisibleharm result; Again, demanding to a causal relationship between abetting behavior andhelping behavior and harmful consequences, which is essential elements of injuryconsequence occurred, or substantially increased the possibility of damage; Finally,requirements are deliberately abet and help people subjectively, and can only be deliberatelyof abet people, help people may be intentional, may be a mistake.The third part of the article are some of the special circumstances of judicial practice andtheoretical analysis. First, it analyzed the network service provider of abetting tort andhelping tort, mainly for the studying the help of the network service provider is not asbehavior as they were. Network service providers in the know web users to use web servicesimplementation of tort and did not delete, shielding and disconnection, was not infringingACTS as a help. Second, it praises some help behavior including the spiritual help, callnumber to provide spiritual support activities such as drum playing a significant role in thebehavior to harm a person, and a causal connection between the occurrence of harmfulconsequences, therefore they should bear the responsibility. Again other situation of somecontroversial focus: first, to the person’s tort intention to know the wrong circumstances,according to the difference of different objective effect we distinguish it, if it is the intent tocause harm produced infringement,it is an instigated behavior; If it is the intention to harm aperson established the infringement, it is set up to help. Second, strict limits on teachingbehavior and help behavior, first of all, teaching behavior and help behavior have illegality,secondly, if it is frequent, it may not constitute abetting act or helping behavior. Third, for afirm to others, an infringement of intent shall be deemed to be helping behavior. Abetting actis made behavior, determined to others can be regarded as an infringement of intent to provideemotional support for others behavior, so as to help more appropriate behavior. Fourth, itdenies the existence of fault solicitation behavior, mainly based on the protection of people’sfreedom of speech, preventing further solicitation behavior recognition range of infinite.The fourth part of the article focuses on discussing the specific responsibility of teachingand helping people and directing infringement behavior person. In general, if a person abets,helps or directs the behavior person constitute a common infringement behavior, he should bejointly and severally liable, but in complete civil capacity without person of civil action competence of solicitation, and this time that he do not have person of civil actioncompetence can be thought of as abetting tool committed ACTS of infringement, so he shouldbe instigated some men to bear tort liability. This paper sorts such situation in this part.Although instigate and help people without directing infringement, their behavior is still a partof the infringement, combined with the behavior of the person directly causing an integraldamage, therefore he shall also bear joint and several liability. In article9, the tort liability actalso stipulates the guardian of the corresponding responsibility, the guardian of thecorresponding responsibility is neither a joint and several liability is not added responsibilities,but on its own it is not guardianship duties of fault liability.