新过错一元论：侵权责任中违法性与过错区分的解构与整合

Neo-Monistic Theory of Fault: Deconstruction and Integration of the Distinction between Wrongfulness and Fault in Tort Liability

摘要: 本文以侵权法中违法性与过错区分的理论重构为核心命题，围绕传统二分法理论在理论基础与规范逻辑上的困境展开体系化探讨。首先通过辨析“违法性”与“过错”在概念谱系中的差异化内涵，确立过错侵害与合法危险侵害的二元类型框架，揭示“合法危险”中风险容许性与行为违法性之间的规范张力。继而从侵权责任保护客体的本质特征切入，质疑区分保护权利与法益的正当性。通过比较法视野下的立法例考察、教义学范式转型，指出理论发展中传统违法性与过错要件统一判断的共同趋向。最终肯定新过错一元论的理论范式，在责任构成要件层面实现违法性判断向过错评价的体系性融合，证成该理论在规范基础、构成要件衔接及证明责任分配上的逻辑自洽性，主张以权利受害危险的创设与实现作为统合性判断标准，归类八种典型归责结果，推动侵权教义学从违法性与过错的形式二分向实质一元的过错教义转型。本文旨在构建契合现代风险分配机制的侵权责任认定体系，为侵权法基础理论的范式革新提供新的解释路径。

Abstract: This article centers on the theoretical reconstruction of the distinction between “wrongfulness” and “fault” in tort law, systematically addressing the doctrinal and normative dilemmas inherent in the traditional dichotomous framework. By first delineating the differentiated conceptual spectra of “wrongfulness” and “fault,” it establishes a dual typological framework of fault-based infringements and lawful hazardous infringements, thereby revealing the normative tension between risk permissibility and behavioral wrongfulness in “lawful hazardous activities.” Proceeding from the essential characteristics of the protected interests in tort liability, the article challenges the legitimacy of distinguishing between the protection of rights and legal interests. Through comparative analyses of legislative models and a paradigm shift in doctrinal methodology, it identifies a convergent trend toward unified adjudication of traditional wrongfulness and fault requirements in contemporary theoretical developments. Ultimately, the article affirms the theoretical paradigm of the Neo-Monistic Theory of Fault, advocating for the systemic integration of wrongfulness assessment into fault evaluation at the level of liability constitutive elements. It demonstrates the logical coherence of this theory in terms of normative foundations, doctrinal articulation, and allocation of evidentiary burdens, proposing the “creation and realization of risks to legal entitlements” as a unified adjudicative criterion. By classifying eight archetypal imputation outcomes, the article advances a transformative shift in tort doctrine—from the formal dichotomy of wrongfulness and fault to a substantive monistic framework of fault-based doctrinal reasoning. This study aims to construct a tort liability determination system aligned with modern risk allocation mechanisms, offering a novel interpretive pathway for the paradigmatic renewal of tort law’s foundational theories.