On The Limited Application Of The Emergency Relief Exemption System In China

Article 184 of the Civil Code of the People’s Republic of China(hereinafter referred to as the Civil Code)stipulates that "the salvor shall not bear civil liability if he causes damage to the assisted person as a result of voluntary emergency rescue." The establishment of the emergency relief liability system is in favor of promoting socialist core values in a new era,but through research it was found that emergency relief system design is too simple and lacks the relevant stipulation of the bailer’s additional duty of attention,which arouses controversy in our theory circles and practice.By sorting out relevant judicial precedents,it concludes that there are many problems in judicial practice that need to be solved,such as unclear application conditions of the system,disputes over the scope of liability exemption of salvors,lack of unified judgment standards on how to consider the fault of salvors,unbalanced protection of the rights and interests of recipients in emergency rescue,and lack of corresponding supporting protection system.Generally speaking,there exists the problem of "same case with different sentences" in judicial practice.First of all,by sorting out the "context" of Article 184 of the Civil Code,it is explored that its legislative purpose is to encourage voluntary brave deeds,relieve salvors of worries,and intentionally delete the relevant provisions of "duty of care" in the legislation.Secondly,the system positioning of emergency relief exemption system in the Civil Code is analyzed and studied.Finally,this paper analyzes the legitimacy of the application of the emergency relief exemption system from two aspects: the principle of balance of interests and the principle of consistency of rights and obligations.In addition,all relevant legislative examples outside the region adopt the legislative model of relative immunity.The legal effect of complete exemption of salvors’ liability is inconsistent with the existing civil liability system,which is irreconcilable,and leads to the conflict of criminal law order,and there is obviously a legal loophole.On how to fill the corresponding legal loophole,the legislation theory is not effective in the short term.The author suggests that emergency rescue should be treated in a categorical way based on whether there is personal danger,and the scope of application of Article 184 of the Civil Code should be reduced to the case of voluntary felon-making with personal danger,which will help reduce its negative impact on the existing legal system.In view of the problem of "the same case with different sentences" in judicial practice and how to reasonably limit the application of the emergency relief exemption system,the first is to further clarify and limit the application conditions of the emergency relief exemption system,so as to reduce the inconsistency of the application of the system.Secondly,it carries out a specific application analysis on the type of liability exemption of salvors.In the case of voluntary valor-making with personal danger,salvors do not need to bear the corresponding duty of care,directly apply Article 184 of the Civil Code to completely exempt them from liability,and refer to their emergency management attributes in the case of general rescue without personal danger.Salvors need to undertake certain duty of care.Achieving a balance of interests between salvors and recipients by curbing the range generalization of article 184 of the Civil Code;Thirdly,the author puts forward some suggestions on the reasonable definition of the criterion of the salvor’s duty of care.Finally,it is recommended to establish a corresponding diversified social security mechanism,committed to maximizing the encouragement of courage and assistance in times of need,while also not forgetting the effective protection of the legitimate rights and interests of recipients,with a view to improving social climate and promoting social harmony and stability.