Catalogue of acts that are not considered torts

Basic concepts

Analysis on the conceptual doctrine of torts

Research on the elements of torts

Definition of the concept of tort

Characteristics

The difference between tort and breach of contract is

Classification of tort

Reasons for exemption of torts

[Edit this paragraph] Basic concepts

Torts are acts in which civil subjects violate civil obligations, infringe upon the legitimate rights and interests of others, and should bear civil liability according to law.

[Edit this paragraph] Comments on the conceptual doctrine of torts

Both the legislation (judgments) of common law and civil law countries have provisions on legal norms for torts. These provisions are not only It provides guidance and guidelines for courts to hear infringement cases in judicial practice, and also provides a basis for us to study the concept of infringement. But after all, it is some legal norms, not a definition of the concept of tort. Therefore, studying the concept of tort is still the task of our scholars. Summarizing the research results of Chinese and foreign scholars on the concept of tort, there are roughly three theories:

(1) Fault theory. Scholars who hold this theory mainly emphasize the fault nature of torts.

For example, the Japanese Civil Code holds that: “Intention or negligence constitute an essential element of a tort. The so-called negligence here refers to the situation where the result of an act was foreseeable but failed to be foreseen, and therefore the result could not be avoided. "[Professor Wang Liming also believes: "A tort refers to an act in which an actor infringes upon others' personal and property due to fault, violates legal obligations, and should bear civil liability according to law."

(2) theory of wrongdoing. The doctrine considers infringement to be a breach of legal obligations.

Tong Rou, the late civil law expert in my country, defined tort as: “It is an act in which an actor illegally infringes upon the property rights or personal rights of others.” Professor Liu Kaixiang also believes that “tort generally refers to an act in which an actor illegally infringes upon the property rights or personal rights of others.” Any act that infringes upon the personal and property rights of others shall bear civil liability according to law.”

(3) Compensation liability theory. This theory is mainly defined from the consequences of infringement.

Professor Zhang Junhao, a Chinese scholar, believes: “The presence or absence of the fact of damage is the logical starting point for determining infringement.” (908) Mr. Zheng Yubo, a Taiwanese scholar, believes that “the infringer is unlawful intentionally or negligently. An act that infringes upon the rights or interests of others and is liable for damages”

Analyzing the above doctrine, it can be seen that there are three problems in the study of the concept of tort:

1. Define the concept of infringement from different perspectives and using different standards. First, starting from the nature of the act itself, it is concluded that the tort is an illegal act or an act of fault liability; second, starting from the object infringed by the act, it is concluded that the tort is an act that infringes upon the legitimate rights and interests of others; third, from the fact that the act infringes upon civil rights Starting from the consequences, it can be concluded that infringement is an act that bears liability for compensation. Due to the lack of a unified standard, academic circles have great differences on the elements of tort:

Japanese scholars believe that four elements must be met for the establishment of general infringement: (1) Intentional and negligent conduct Existence; (2) Existence of illegality; (3) Occurrence of damage; (4) Causal relationship between damage and illegal behavior; [8] French scholars believe that there must be three elements: fault, fact of damage and causal relationship; Germany Scholars believe that there are four elements: fault, illegality of behavior, fact of damage and causal relationship;

There are many theories in our country.

The constitutive elements of infringement are summarized into six elements: four of them are objective elements: it must infringe the rights of others; there must be damage; the behavior must be illegal; there must be a causal relationship between the behavior that infringes the rights of others and the damage; subjective There are two essential elements: the perpetrator must have the capacity to commit tortious conduct, and the perpetrator must be intentional or negligent; there are five essential elements: (1) There must be damage—damage elements; (2) The damage must be caused by the alleged act— Causation requirement; (3) The infringing act must be illegal—illegality requirement; (4) There must be a fault at the time of the act—negligence requirement; (5) The offender must have responsibility and ability—responsibility requirement; there are four requirements of: damage; the illegality of the act; there is a causal relationship between the fact of damage and the illegal act; the perpetrator is subjectively at fault; (686~690) There are three elements: (1) The tort is an act that infringes on the legitimate rights and interests of others; (2) Tort is an illegal act carried out by the actor based on his fault. Under certain circumstances, acts without fault of the actor can also constitute a tort; (3) Tort is an act that should bear civil liability. [11] There are also two elements: (1) Tort is an act that infringes upon the property rights and personal rights of others; (2) Tort is the basis for bearing civil liability.

2. When defining the concept of infringement, the infringement is not strictly separated from other related concepts, and there is a phenomenon of conceptual confusion. It is more common to confuse tortious behavior with tort liability; to confuse tortious behavior with tort liability principles.

3. Failure to form a concept of genus that encompasses all infringements. The concepts are divided into "genus" and "species". The genus concept reflects the homogeneity of a certain type of things, and the genus concept reflects the particularity of each individual thing in the type of things. The species concept is included in the genus concept.

As a generic concept, tort should reflect the same essential attributes of various types of infringement. It can not only include all kinds of torts, so that people can judge and identify what infringements are based on this concept; it also requires that it can distinguish torts from other concepts. In the existing concepts of torts, the so-called theory of illegal behavior, the theory of fault behavior (there is even the theory of fault), the theory of liability for compensation, the so-called "violation of law", "fault", "compensation", etc. in these theories, they No one can tolerate the other, they are in a parallel relationship and cannot form a concept. Concepts should reflect the essence of things and be the basis for judgment to distinguish one thing from other things. However, it is difficult for the existing concept of torts to do this

[Edit this paragraph] Research on the elements of torts< /p>

The dispute over the above requirements. It mainly focuses on the following factors, namely: fault, illegal behavior, and whether the fact of damage is the necessary component of the tort. The “elements” of infringement should be essential conditions for all infringements. Only when the lack of this condition cannot constitute an infringement can it be called an "element"; otherwise, it cannot be called an "element". When a certain condition is only necessary to constitute a certain type of tort, but not a necessary condition for all torts, such conditions should not be regarded as "essentials" of the concept of torts. Based on this guiding ideology, let us discuss several elements in the dispute:

(1) Fault. According to the common theory in Chinese academic circles, it refers to "the psychological state of the actor when engaging in illegal acts, which is divided into two types: intentional and negligent. The so-called intentional means that the actor knows that his behavior may have certain legal consequences, but still carries out the act. Such behavior intentionally contributes to the occurrence of the illegal consequences. The so-called negligence means that the perpetrator should have foreseen or could have foreseen the possible illegal consequences of his actions, but failed to foresee them, or even though he had foreseen them, he believed that they would not happen. Cause illegal consequences." It can be seen that fault mainly refers to the subjective consciousness of the perpetrator. This article believes that fault should not be a constitutive element of tort:

First, from the perspective of our country’s legislation, Article 106 of our country’s “General Principles of Civil Law” stipulates: “There is no fault, but civil liability is stipulated by law. , should bear civil liability." Accordingly, the general principles of my country's civil law adopt a broad concept of torts, including both fault-related torts and behaviors that are not at fault but subject to civil liability according to the law.

Fault tort is a subordinate concept of tort; as a subordinate concept, "tort" should not have its place.

Second, from the perspective of judicial practice, when the court determines certain infringements, it can sometimes determine it as an infringement based only on the behavior itself, without exploring the inner feelings of the actor. Subjective fault. For example, the act of counterfeiting someone else's registered trademark is sufficient to constitute infringement in itself, and there is no need to explore the perpetrator's inner psychological state.

Third, in many cases, as long as the actor's behavior infringes upon the legitimate rights and interests recognized and protected by the law, even if the actor has no fault in his heart, it should still be considered a tort. "People who do bad things with good intentions" are one type. Although it is "well-intentioned", it infringes upon others and cannot but be regarded as "infringement". There are also such examples abroad. There is a "shull of egg-shell" principle in American tort law, that is, the plaintiff has a "head as thin as an egg shell", and the defendant pats his head like an ordinary person because of "joking", but caused the death of the plaintiff. In this case, the defendant had "absolutely no intention" to harm the plaintiff. The defendant did not foresee and should not have foreseen that his actions would cause the plaintiff's death. But the defendant is still responsible for his or her actions. What constitutes the infringement element here is his "behavior and its consequences" rather than "inner fault".

Fourth, the focus of tort law protection should be on innocent victims. Even if the perpetrator has no intention or negligence in his heart, but causes damage to others, the victim should be compensated. In this regard, the famous American judge O1W1 Holmes has a very wonderful discussion: "If a person who is born reckless and stupid is always causing trouble, either hurting others or harming himself, then there is no doubt that his congenital defects will be judged in the court of heaven. He will be forgiven, but the trouble he has inadvertently caused his neighbors is no less than the trouble he caused by criminal negligence, so his neighbors demand that he live up to their standards or bear the consequences; and it is up to these neighbors to do so. A court established by a man will not consider his personal shortcomings."

(2) "Illegal". "Illegal" refers to the negative evaluation of the behavior by the law. Whether "illegal" can be used as a constitutive element of infringement? There is a question of how to measure "illegal". There are two standards for measuring the "illegality" of an act: One is based on the object of the infringement, which holds that any act that infringes upon the legitimate rights and interests protected by the law is an illegal act. This standard was reflected in the opinions of the Second Drafting Committee against the First Drafting Committee when drafting the German Civil Code at the end of the 19th century. The Second Drafting Committee objected to the second paragraph of Article 704 of the Civil Code drafted by the First Drafting Committee, believing that this paragraph allows any victim to enjoy the right to compensation for damages regardless of whether the law violated was to protect his affected interests. Such laws go too far. It is argued that the tortfeasor shall be liable for compensation to the victim only when it infringes upon the legal interests of the victim. The German Civil Code finally adopted the opinions of the Second Drafting Committee and formed Article 823 of the German Civil Code, which was promulgated and implemented in 1990. Another standard is to define whether an infringement is "illegal" based on the nature of the act itself. If the actor's behavior itself is legal, even if the behavior infringes upon the legitimate rights and interests of citizens and legal persons, the behavior cannot be defined as a tort, and it can even become a reason to prevent the violation of the law. Emergency avoidance is a legal behavior recognized by traditional civil law theory. Some civil law textbooks not only do not mention that emergency evacuation may also cause "infringement", but also believe that emergency evacuation can be a reason to prevent violation of the law. This article believes that everything has duality. Whether emergency evacuation can constitute an infringement should be analyzed in detail based on the specific circumstances. For example, "If a fire breaks out at the city gate, it will affect the fish in the pond." There is no doubt that putting out the fire is a legal act. But from the perspective of the owner of the pond fish, if his property is damaged for no reason, isn’t that an infringement? Judging from the actual social life in our country, many legal behaviors also cause infringement damage. If a factory discharges pollutants in accordance with national standards, this is considered a legal act. However, even if the factory discharges pollutants legally, compensation will still be paid to residents in surrounding communities who cause damage. On November 28, 2001, CCTV's Oriental Time and Space program broadcast that the installation of a certain high-voltage power station was completed in compliance with national requirements, but the three daughters of a nearby resident all suffered from a strange disease due to the impact of the installation of the high-voltage power station. Sue the power station.

Can it not be considered an infringement just because it "fully complies with national regulations"? The reality of social life has challenged the traditional tort theory. Some scholars have correctly pointed out: "Although tort is a civil legal fact, it is difficult to completely attribute it to illegal or legal acts. It should be considered that most torts are legal facts that are illegal acts, and there are also legal acts. "The legal fact of infringing upon the rights of others." Therefore, from the nature of the act itself, it is difficult to regard "illegal" as a constitutive element of infringement.

(3) Facts of damage. Damage includes both material or pecuniary damage, personal injury, death and moral distress. Many academic works regard the fact of damage as an indispensable element to constitute a tort. It is believed that “mere conduct without damage does not constitute an infringement.” “Various infringements have different degrees and the consequences are not exactly the same. A minor infringement may cause minimal damage, but in any case, there is no Damage does not constitute an infringement. "Under normal circumstances, infringement will cause damage, which is normal. But is it so absolute that any infringement causes harm? It’s debatable. From the perspective of causation, infringement is the cause and the fact of damage is the effect. From a criminological perspective, there are "criminal preparations" and "criminal attempts." Even if these behaviors do not cause harm, they do not affect the condemnability of their actions. Tort and damage facts are two different concepts. Tort is a summary of the nature of tortious behavior, while damage facts are the consequences caused by infringement. In most cases, infringement will cause a certain degree of damage, but there are exceptions. Examples from real life can prove this: A certain factory printed someone else’s registered trademark without authorization and put it on its own products in preparation for sale. After being reported, the counterfeit trademark was seized and destroyed by the Industrial and Commercial Bureau. In this case, the factory’s behavior did not cause any economic losses or mental losses to the trademark owner, but does this mean that it cannot be considered an infringement? Can a registered trademark holder be required to bear civil liability for an apology? In British and American tort law, there are nominal damages and substantive damages. Nominal damages refer to damages that are used to confirm the rights that have been violated when no actual damage has been caused, although the victim has the right to claim compensation. [In some countries in the civil law system, such as Japan, the University Bathroom Incident was ruled by the Grand Court of Appeal on November 28, 1925 that the establishment of an infringement does not necessarily have to constitute an infringement of certain rights. It is not difficult to see that infringement without damage does exist. It does not mean that infringement cannot be constituted without the fact of damage.

Through the above analysis, it can be seen that fault, violation of law, and facts of damage are not necessarily the constituent elements of infringement under certain circumstances. "Any form of movement contains its own special contradictions. This special contradiction constitutes the special essence that distinguishes one thing from other things." The reason why torts are diverse and varied is because each Each kind of infringement has its own particularity. The formation of this particularity lies in the difference in time, place and conditions. Everything is transferred based on certain time and place conditions. Sometimes, an act itself can constitute infringement without other conditions, such as counterfeiting someone else's well-known trademark. Sometimes it is not possible to determine whether a single act constitutes an infringement, and other conditions are needed to match it. For example, A and B have a quarrel. A is angry and chases B with a stick. Because B runs fast, A fails to hit him. Although A clearly intended to harm B, it did not constitute a tort because it failed to cause damage to B's person or property. In this case, the constitution of A's infringement requires two conditions: intentional behavior and the fact that the behavior caused damage to B. It is obviously unrealistic to force these two different types of infringement into the framework of three elements and four elements.

[Edit this paragraph] Definition of the concept of tort

There are two legislative examples for the constitution of tort: ??one is the one adopted by Roman law and common law countries to define each tort. There are two ways of separately stipulating the requirements and effects for individual types of torts. The other is like Article 1382 of the French Civil Code, which sets general provisions on the elements and effects of infringements (making the person who caused damage due to faute bear compensation. Obligations). Judging from the works of Chinese scholars, they are generally enthusiastic about the latter, that is, they adopt a general abstract and general definition method. According to the former, it seems that we can draw the conclusion that it is impossible to give a unified concept to torts; according to the latter, it seems that it is difficult to achieve a unified understanding. Where is the way out? This article believes that torts, as a type of social phenomenon, must have unique characteristics. As long as we summarize the unique things from each special and specific tort, we can give a more scientific definition of torts. The concept is still possible.

(1) Guiding ideas for defining the concept of torts

1. The concept of torts should reflect the unique characteristics of various torts.

Scholars hope to come up with a unified definition of infringement. "The focus of this definition lies in the operability of the specification. Since the definition gives the identification signs and constituent elements of the infringement, the judge can make a judgment as long as he determines whether the facts of the case meet the legal conditions according to the syllogism reasoning method. Such a definition That is to say, it has become the prerequisite for the implementation of the law and the embodiment of the unity and stability of the law.” The reason why the civil law academic circle currently has different understandings of the constitution of torts and has formed three elements, four elements, or even five elements and six elements is precisely because they ignore it. Discover the reasons or basis for its universality from various specific infringement behaviors. Although torts vary widely, their common feature is that the legitimate rights and interests of others recognized and protected by the law are infringed upon by some act. The tortfeasor is the subject, and the infringed object is the legitimate rights and interests of others recognized and protected by the law. The subject acts on the object through various tortious behaviors and becomes the intermediary between the subject and the object. In the relationship between subject, behavior and object, the object is single, while the subject and behavior are multiple and complex. The singularity of the object provides the basis for defining the concept of tort.

2. The connotation of infringement should be the same essential attributes of various specific infringements.

Historically, the expression of the concept of tort is far less complicated than that of modern scholars. In the "General Theory of Laws" written by Justinian, the world-famous masterpiece of Roman law, "the term injuria generally refers to all violations of the law." "During the Roman Empire, Rome had defined illegal activities as Divided into public crimes (delicta publica) and private crimes (delicta p rivata). 1 At that time, public crimes referred to crimes such as collaborating with the enemy, treason, and other crimes that endanger national interests, while private crimes were crimes against private property or persons." It can be seen that torts in Roman law. Behavior is an act that infringes upon private property or person. Both simple and clear. The shortcoming of this concept is that not all behaviors that infringe on the rights and interests of others can be recognized as infringements, but must be behaviors that confirm and protect the rights and interests of others by the law. As the theoretical premise of various specific torts, torts should comply with the "simplest principle".

The so-called simplest principle means that by extension, it can include all infringements. In terms of connotation, it can focus on the most basic units and factors that are common in various torts, and eliminate all the special factors that are present in different types of infringements. To use a term in mathematics, it is to find the "greatest common divisor" between numbers. The less special factors such a concept reflects in various specific infringements, the smaller the probability that people will make mistakes in understanding and identifying infringements. This is just as Einstein said: "When the basic concepts and axioms are getting farther and farther away from observable things, so that it becomes more and more difficult and time-consuming to use facts to verify the meaning of the theory, this kind of The argumentation method will definitely play a greater role in the choice of theory. ”

3. The concept of tort should conform to the scientific logical structure.

Logic tells us that concepts should reflect the essential attributes of things.

For a concept to reflect the essential attributes of things, it must first start by examining the specific thing or phenomenon, and then combine the various parts, factors and attributes of the object or phenomenon under study into a unified whole for inspection, comparison and analysis. Then the essential attributes of the object or phenomenon are abstracted, and the remaining attributes are temporarily put aside without examination, and the transition from understanding the special essence of individual things to understanding the unique essence of similar things is made. This method is the method of analysis, synthesis, abstraction and generalization. The objective basis of generalization is that things of the same type have universal attributes. This universal attribute is not only possessed by an individual thing, but also by things of this type. Concepts that can reflect the essential attributes of the same type of things are genus concepts, and concepts that can reflect individual things in the same type of things are species concepts. The relationship between the concept of tort and the concept of specific tort should be consistent with the relationship between the concept of genus and the concept of species.

(2) Definition of the concept of torts

Based on the above guiding ideology, torts should be defined as: the behavior of an actor that infringes upon the legitimate rights and interests of others recognized and protected by law. The concepts included under this concept are: torts with fault and torts without fault; torts caused by illegal acts and torts caused by legal acts; torts that infringe upon personal rights and infringements on property rights; There are tortious acts that cause damage and there are torts that do not cause damage. The difference between this concept and previous concepts is that in the past, when defining the concept of tort, the focus was on the infringer, focusing on whether the tort itself was illegal or whether the infringer was subjectively at fault. This article will It is called the subjectivist method of definition. The definition of infringement in this article focuses on the object or object that is infringed, that is, all legitimate rights and interests recognized by the law should be protected. No matter what kind of behavior, as long as it infringes upon the legitimate rights and interests protected by the law, it can be regarded as an infringement. We might as well call it the objectivist definition method here. Here is a brief explanation of the object, subject and behavior of infringement:

First, the object of infringement is the rights and interests recognized and protected by law. Regarding whether the rights and interests are recognized and protected by law, it can be determined in three situations: One situation is that the object of the infringement is an interest that is absolutely protected by law. This kind of rights and interests is cosmopolitan, that is, everyone in the world has the obligation not to infringe, and the obligor is not specific. No matter who it is, anyone who infringes upon this right is an infringement. For example, under normal circumstances, the personal rights and property rights of civil subjects are rights and interests absolutely protected by law. Another situation is that the object of the infringement belongs to the object of "relative protection" of the law. That is to say, the law allows actors to harm objects within a certain scope or under certain conditions. The law does not prohibit, condemn, or even encourage such harm. The law only provides protection if the perpetrator violates these conditions. For example, when a doctor treats a disease and saves a patient, he not only has to remove the patient's disease, but also for the benefit of the patient, when removing the patient, he must also remove some of the patient's good organs or body. This is done as a last resort to save the patient's life, and this behavior certainly does not constitute infringement. If this situation is exceeded or these conditions are not met, and other organs or bodies are removed from the patient that should not be removed, this is an infringement of the legitimate rights and interests protected by the law and should be considered an infringement. For example, a certain hospital that was a hot topic in the media removed a patient's uterus in order to treat appendicitis. For another example, in competitive sports, if an athlete injures an opponent's body due to reasonable collision under the premise of abiding by the rules of competitive sports, this is permitted by law and does not belong to the rights recognized and protected by the law, and cannot be regarded as an infringement. If an athlete violates the rules of competition and intentionally injures an opponent, it should be considered an infringement. Because the person of the injured athlete in this case belongs to the rights recognized and protected by law. Third, the object of the infringement belongs to "objects that are not recognized and protected by law." For example, killing or injuring a criminal suspect in order to stop him from committing murder is considered "legitimate defense" and naturally does not constitute an infringement.

Second, identify the subject of infringement. To identify an infringement, the infringement should be distinguished from the specific liability for infringement.

Traditional civil law theory holds that since an incapacitated person does not have the capacity to act, his actions do not involve infringement issues. This view is questionable. Infringement and the specific assumption of tort liability are two issues of different natures. Article 133 of the General Principles of the Civil Law of our country stipulates: "If a person without capacity for civil conduct or a person with limited capacity for civil conduct causes damage to others, the guardian shall bear civil liability." If we say that the General Principles of Civil Law here explain the nature of the behavior "causing damage to others" If it is not clear enough, then the "Opinions of the Supreme People's Court of my country on Several Issues Concerning the Implementation of the General Principles of the People's Republic of China and Civil Law (Trial)" makes it clearer. Article 22 of it stipulates that "a guardian may entrust part or all of his guardianship duties to others. If the guardian needs to bear civil liability due to the infringement behavior, the guardian shall bear it." Here, the Supreme People's Court considers the guardian's "behavior that causes damage to others" Defined as an infringement. Among them, the ward naturally includes the incompetent person. Based on this, there is every reason to believe that a person without capacity for civil conduct can become the subject of infringement, and his behavior can constitute a tort, and it is not necessarily related to whether he specifically bears civil liability.

Third, the determination of the “act” of infringement. Traditional civil law theory links torts with the perpetrator's ability to understand and judge the consequences of his actions. It is believed that a person with incapacity does not have the capacity to conduct torts because he cannot identify and judge the consequences of his actions. This article believes that it is unnecessary to impose too many subjective factors on the determination of infringement. Life practice proves that there are two kinds of torts: one is subjective no-fault infringement, including torts by incapacitated persons and "good intentions doing bad things"; the other is fault infringement, that is, intentional or negligent infringement. The consequences of these two torts on the victim are essentially the same. Infringement is a factual act. "A factual act (realakte) is an act that is legally effective based on the state or process of the fact and the results produced by the law." It can be seen that factual behavior does not emphasize the subjective factors of the actor. British jurist Flemiming believes that "regardless of whether the infringer is subjectively blameworthy, the innocent victim should receive compensation."

It can be seen that infringement is defined by whether it infringes upon the rights recognized and protected by the law. The nature of behavior has the basis of law and social practice.

In short, it is scientific to define the concept of infringement based on whether it infringes upon the legitimate rights and interests recognized and protected by law. Based on this concept, as long as the rights and interests that are absolutely protected by law are infringed upon, the behavior should be deemed as an infringement. Rights and interests that are relatively protected by law can only be determined as infringement if they meet specific conditions. Infringement of objects that are not recognized and protected by law will not be considered as infringement.

[Edit this paragraph] Characteristics

(1) Infringement is an illegal act that infringes upon the legitimate rights and interests of others;

(2) The object of infringement is absolutely Rights;

(3) Infringement is a conscious act by the perpetrator.

[Edit this paragraph] The difference between infringement and breach of contract is

(1) Infringement violates legal obligations, while breach of contract violates contractual obligations;

(2) Torts infringe upon absolute rights, while breach of contract infringes upon relative rights;

(3) Legal liability for torts includes property liability and non-property liability, while liability for breach of contract only LIMITED TO PROPERTY LIABILITY.

[Edit this paragraph] Classification of infringement

1? General infringement and special infringement.

2? Individual infringement is the same as *** joint infringement.

3? Active infringement and passive infringement.

One should understand the criteria for distinguishing between general infringement and special infringement, the criteria for distinguishing between infringement by act and infringement by omission, and especially the situation of ***same infringement:

(1 ) There is a communication of the same intention between the infringers;

(2) Although there is no communication of the same intention between the infringers, the damage caused by their actions is inseparable;

(3) The instigator and the perpetrator both cause harm to others. Common infringement requires that all infringers are at fault, and unintentional conduct does not constitute concurrent infringement.

Attention should be paid to distinguishing between joint infringement and individual infringement: the infringer shall be jointly and severally liable with the infringer; individual infringement shall bear his own liability.

[Edit this paragraph] Reasons for exemption from infringement

1. Force majeure

Force majeure refers to objective circumstances that are unforeseen, unavoidable and insurmountable.

2. The victim’s fault

The victim’s fault refers to the victim’s fault for the occurrence of the infringement or the expansion of the damage consequences of the infringement.

3. Justifiable defense

Legitimate defense refers to protecting the property, person or other legitimate rights and interests of oneself or others from ongoing illegal infringement in order to protect the interests of the public. The acts committed against the unlawful intruder do not exceed the necessary limits.

4. Emergency evacuation

Emergency evacuation refers to protecting one’s or others’ property, personal or other legal rights and interests from ongoing dangers for the benefit of the public. and acts of necessity that cause minor harm to others.

5. Victim’s consent

The victim’s consent refers to the victim’s voluntary and clear intention to bear the consequences of certain damages before the infringement or damage occurs. express.

Principles of liability for torts

1. Principle of fault liability

2. Principle of no-fault liability

3. Principle of fair liability