The Influence Of Victim's Special Physical Fitness On The Tort Liability

When the victim's special physical fitness is combined with the infringer's injuring behavior,it often leads to the expansion of the damage consequences.So whether the infringer should bear all the responsibilities for the damage consequences caused by the intervention of the special physical fitness becomes the focus of the responsibility sharing in the infringement of the special physical fitness.Due to the lack of law on the infringement of special physical fitness in our country,there are different judgment standards for the victim to share the liability for damages in the infringement of special physical fitness and the general reasoning is vague.In order to make up for the legal gap in the infringement of special physical fitness,on January 26,2014,the Supreme People's Court issued the Guide Case No.24,which takes "the special physical fitness of the victims of traffic accidents does not belong to their fault,and the impact of special physical fitness on the consequences of damage does not belong to the legal situation that can reduce the liability of the infringers",and makes it clear that in the infringement cases of special physical fitness,the victims should be determined The main point of the judgment is that the tort liability of the actor shall not be reduced due to the special physical fitness of the victim.The issue of Guide Case No.24 basically fixed the principle of "the actor should bear all the liability for compensation",and provided effective guidance for the determination of responsibility sharing of special physical damage compensation.However,it must be acknowledged that after the issuance of the Guide Case No.24,the courts did not fully follow their judgment ideas to judge similar cases,and the issuance of Guide Case No.24 did not completely solve the situation that the courts had different judgment ideas and vague theories in dealing with the problem of liability sharing of damages in judicial trials.The "one size fits all" judgment idea Guide Case 24 is difficult to cover multiple practical needs.However,the problems existing in the theory or judicial practice of the "eggshell and head rule" in common law,which guides the case reference,have been increasingly exposed,and its inherent problems have been more and more criticized by scholars.There are some limitations for theorists to explain the sharing of liability for damages in tort of special physical fitness by using causality.Causality is a necessary but not sufficient condition for the bearing of tort liability.It is not enough for the actor to bear all the consequences of damages due to the expansion of the victim's special physical fitness as a support or as a refuter,but only focusing on the identification of causality,it is ignored When solving such problems in the academic circle or judicial trial,it often implies the consideration of the leading factor,that is,the insistence on the concept of fairness.In fact,no matter what theory is used to interpret the "eggshell head rule" and Guide Case No.24,it is inevitable to integrate the concept of fairness.That is to say,for the damage consequences caused by the expansion of special physical fitness,it should be fairly distributed between the specific infringers and the specific victims.In order to solve the current situation of such cases with unclear reasoning and different judgment standards in judicial practice,and balance the conflict between the proper judgment and legal predictability caused by the imperfect provisions of the relief of liability in the Tort Law,we need to find out the interests to be measured and the interest measurement formula that are generally applicable to such cases from the perspective of interest law to build a flexible system approach of responsibility sharing with judgment.