源于損害風險管控的傳播注意義務,包括法定注意義務和依據習慣、常理產生的一般注意義務,其確立模式有英美法的成立條件模式和德國的適用范圍模式,其標準包括適用于一般人的"理性人"標準及職業標準。在傳播侵權訴訟中,其作為過失存在、客觀化演進及違法性的判斷依據,發揮著責任要件的構成功能,而且,因其與行為標準之間的關系而使責任要件的證明便利化。我國侵權法未引進一般注意義務,相關司法解釋中參照英美法成立條件模式的條款未能系統明確地規定傳播注意義務與過失判斷的關系,導致司法實踐中對媒體"事中注意義務"的矛盾性判決。我國《民法典·侵權責任編》應引入一般注意義務,并在涉傳播司法解釋中規定德國模式注意義務適用范圍。

Communication duty of care from damage risk control include legal and general duty of care from habits and common sense, whose establishment model includes establishment conditions model in AngloAmerican law and the scope model of application in Germany,whose standard include reasonable person standard and professional standard. In communication tort litigation,the duty of care bears function of liability requirements as the judgment basis of existence and objectification evolution of negligence and illegality. It also facilitates the proof of liability requirements attribute to the relationship between which and behavior standard. In China,the tort law does not introduce the general duty of care,and the clauses in the related judicial interpretations reference to establishment conditions model in Anglo-American law does not systematically and clearly define the relationship between the communication duty of care and negligence judgment,which results in contradictory judgments to the media duty of care in action in judicial practice. The Tort Liability Series in Chinese Civil Code should introduce general duty of care,and stipulate the scope of application of German model in judicial interpretations involving communication.