%0 Journal Article
%T 自甘风险规则研究<br>Research on Self-Willed Risk Rules
%A 徐雪
%J Open Journal of Legal Science
%P 962-968
%@ 2329-7379
%D 2023
%I Hans Publishing
%R 10.12677/OJLS.2023.113138
%X 《民法典》第1176条规定了自甘风险制度，其大致内容是将自愿参加具有一定风险的文体活动而遭受损害，且其他参加者对该损害的发生无故意或重大过失的，排除侵权责任的适用。作为新时代我国法治建设的重大成果，将自甘风险作为法定免责事由，使得我国民法免责事由体系得到了进一步的完善。但在司法实践中，由于法条规定的抽象性，因此对于自甘风险的内涵与适用范围仍然存在争议，在此背景下通过运用法律解释的方法明确其价值成为了法律界的重要任务，除此之外，还要重点了解自甘风险原则的构成内容，同时要能够明确地分辨自甘风险与受害人同意及公平分担损失的区别，从而更好地为案件当事人划分责任。虽然法律将自甘风险限制在文化体育活动中，但并没有明确排除类推的适用，这在司法实践中也形成了一定的共识，法官在审理案件时应结合案件具体情况，谨慎确定各当事人的责任，以避免在法律适用上出现错误。<br />
Article 1176 of the Civil Code provides for the system of self-giving risk, the general content of which is to exclude the application of tort liability if the damage is suffered by voluntary participation in cultural and sports activities with certain risks, and the other participants are not intentional or grossly negligent for the occurrence of the damage, as a major achievement of the construction of the rule of law in China in the new era, the self-giving risk as a statutory exclusion of liability, so that the system of exclusion of liability in China’s civil law has been further improved. The system of exclusion of liability in civil law has been further improved. However, in judicial practice, due to the abstract nature of the provisions of the law, there is still a controversy about the connotation and scope of application of the risk of self-giving, in this context, it has become an important task for the legal profession to clarify its value through the use of legal interpretation, in addition to focusing on understanding the composition of the principle of risk of self-giving, and to be able to clearly distinguish the difference between the risk of self-giving and the victim’s consent and fair share of loss, so as to better divide the responsibility for the parties to the case. In addition, it is important to understand what constitutes the principle of self-interest, and to be able to distinguish clearly the difference between self-interest and the victim’s consent and equitable contribution to the loss, in order to better allocate responsibility for the parties to the case. Although the law limits the risk of self-giving to cultural and sporting activities, it does not explicitly exclude the application of analogy, which has also formed a certain consensus in judicial practice, and judges should be careful to de-termine the responsibility of each party in the light of the specific circumstances of the case in order to avoid errors in the application of the law.
%K 自甘风险，风险活动，损害赔偿，注意义务<br>Self-Willed Risk
%K Risky Activities
%K Damages
%K Duty of Care
%U http://www.hanspub.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=65306