Research On The Causality Of The Interruption Of The Intervention Behavior Of The Third-Party In Tort Law

The third party’s intervention as an independent cause of exemption or reduction does not solve the dilemma in practice.The third person’s intervention does not have the independence and derivative characteristics of the defence,and should not be used as an independent relief or reduction of liability.The third person’s intervention behavior is a kind of intervention factor in causality,and it should be judged in the causality requirements.Reasonable judgment of the third person’s intervention in interrupting the causality is the key to solving the problems in judicial practice.When the third party interferes with the causal relationship,the initial actor is exempted from liability;when the third party interferes with the causal relationship,the liability sharing is determined according to the majority infringement.The judgment of the third person’s intervention in interrupting the causality is more complicated.In order to form a fair judgment that is reasonable in the specific case,First,define the general conditions of the third person’s intervention,which is the premise of judging the causality of the third person’s intervention;Secondly,choose a reasonable judgment method and determine the judgment criterion for the interruption of the causality of the third party intervention behavior;Finally,determine the general applicable rules of the judgment rules,and analyze the situation in which the third person’s intervention behavior interrupts the causality.The third person’s intervention in the act of interrupting the causality should be value judged in the scope of responsibility.By classifying and summarizing the cases,the judgment standards to be applied in various cases are selected,and relevant factors are fully considered in the application of the judgment standards.According to the different causality and damage status before the third party intervention,the cases are divided into general intervention cases and dangerous situations.Reasonable foresight rules should be adopted in the judgment of the third party’s intervention in interrupting the causality in general intervention cases.The factors to be considered are the objective independence of third-party intervention and the type of third-party intervention.A third-party intervention that can interrupt the causal relationship between the initial behavior and the expansion of damage needs to meettwo elements:The first is that the third person’s intervention is not caused by the initial behavior;The second is that the third party’s intervention is illegal and has intentional or gross negligence.In the case of dangerous situations,the judgment of the third person’s intervention in interrupting the causality is more advantageous in adopting the rule of danger range.The factors to be considered are mainly the content of the obligation of the original actor to create danger and the scope of intervention activities reasonably assumed in the dangerous situation or dangerous state.In this type of case,the intervention of a third person who can reasonably be assumed in a dangerous situation or a dangerous state does not interrupt the causal relationship between the initial behavior and the final damage.The third-party intervention can interrupt the causal relationship between the initial behavior and the final damage only in two cases,The first is that the initial actor has taken appropriate measures to remove the offender from a dangerous situation or isolate a dangerous state,The second is an intervention by a third person who deliberately uses a dangerous situation or dangerous state,and the behavior is not directed to a dangerous manufacturing condition or convenience.