作者：朱晓峰
作者介绍：中央财经大学法学院教授
出版日期：2025年10月9日
内容提要 在《民法典》第1254条、第1198条第2款结合《侵权责任编解释（一）》第24、25条等共同构筑起的高空抛物侵权致损赔偿规范体系内部，存在着具体侵权人确定时的过错赔偿一元结构与具体侵权人不确定时的赔偿与补偿二元结构。其中，过错赔偿一元结构围绕具体侵权人与违反安全保障义务的建筑物管理人的规范关系展开，享有先执行抗辩权且承担了与其过错相应的补充责任的建筑物管理人对具体侵权人的追偿范围应受《刑事诉讼法解释》第175条第2款限制；在赔偿与补偿的二元结构内需要平衡处理违反安全保障义务的建筑物管理人、可能加害的建筑物使用人、违反调查职责的公安机关及受害人的关系，尤其应明确公安机关对受害人、建筑物使用人遭受的纯粹经济损失的赔偿责任，以及公安机关承担赔偿责任后享有的追偿权与应当履行的追偿义务之间的关系。于此情形下，建筑物使用人及公安机关的追偿范围不应受限于《刑事诉讼法解释》第175条第2款，以在高空抛物侵权损害赔偿问题上贯彻过错责任原则。
关键词 高空抛物 安全保障义务 补充责任 适当补偿 追偿
Abstract: Within the normative system of compensation for damages caused by throwing an object from height, jointly established by articles 1254 and 1198(2) of the Civil Code, combined with articles 24 and 25 of the Interpretation on the Application of Book Seven (Tort Liability) of the Civil Code (I), etc., there exists a fault-based unitary compensation structure when the specific tortfeasor is identifiable, and a dual compensation-indemnification structure when the specific tortfeasor is unidentifiable. Within the fault-based unitary compensation structure, the focus should be on the normative relationship between the specific tortfeasor and the building manager who breached the duty of safety assurance. In this context, the building manager, who enjoys a right of first execution defense and bears supplementary liability commensurate with their fault, shall have their recourse against the specific tortfeasor limited by article 175(2) of the Interpretation on the Application of the Criminal Procedure Law. Within the dual compensation-indemnification structure, it is necessary to balance the relationships between the building manager who breached the duty of safety assurance, the possible wrongdoers (building users), the public security organ that violated the duty of investigation, and the victim. Particular emphasis should be placed on clarifying the liability for compensation of the public security organ for pure economic losses suffered by the victim and the building users, and on the relationship between the right of recourse enjoyed by the public security organ after assuming the liability for compensation and its corresponding obligation to pursue recourse. In this scenario, the scope of recourse for the building users and the public security organ should not be limited by article 175(2) of the Interpretation on the Application of the Criminal Procedure Law, thereby upholding the principle of fault liability in matters of compensation for damages caused by throwing an object from height.