過失犯是相對于故意犯而存在的一種犯罪類型。在刑法教義學中,對過失犯進行了較多的研究,形成了舊過失論、新過失論和新新過失論等各種不同的理論觀點。對于過失犯不能僅僅從存在論上進行分析,而是應當注重規范論的考察,只有從規范的視角才能真正把握過失犯的獨特內容。過失犯還存在一個從責任論到構成要件論的演變過程,最初的過失論只是責任論的內容之一,過失和故意相并列成為兩種責任形式。此后,隨著新過失論的興起,過失不再僅僅是責任要素,而且也是構成要件要素。在構成要件階層主要考察過失犯的實行行為,在責任階層則主要進行主觀歸責的分析。在過失犯的構成要件中,應當以違反結果避免義務為中心,而在過失犯的主觀歸責時,則以違反結果預見義務為核心而展開。本文以朱平書等危險物品肇事案為線索,從過失犯的各個階層對本案的定罪過程予以理論分析。

Negligent crime is a type of crime corresponding to intentional crime. In the dogmatic theory of criminal law, negligent crime has been studied to some extent, and different academic viewpoints have been formed, including the old doctrine of negligence, the new doctrine of negligence and the doctrine of sense of fear. As to negligent crime, we should not only analyze it from the perspective of ontology, but also pay more attention to its normative study. And then, we would really grasp its unique content. The doctrines of negligent crime have an evolution process with a shift from the theory of culpability to the theory of constitutive element. The traditional doctrines of negligence belong to the content of the theory of culpability; correspondingly, negligence and intention are regarded as two forms of culpability. Since then, with the rise of the new doctrine of negligence, negligence is no longer just an element of culpability, but becomes a constitutive element of wrongdoing. In the level of negligent crime’s wrongdoing, people mainly examine its perpetrating act; while in the level of negligent crime’s culpability, people would carry on the analysis of subjective imputation. In the wrongdoing of negligent crime, whether the obligation to avoid the harmful result has been violated should be its center. While in the subjective imputation of negligent crime, the breach of the obligation to foresee would be taken as its core. Taking the case of Zhu Pingshu and Liu Chao as a clue, this paper makes a theoretical analysis on the defendants’ convictions from the levels of negligent crime’s normative structure.