公平责任自确立以来便成为学界争议焦点，对公平责任性质、适用等问题的分歧也导致公平责任在司法实践中滥用问题丛生，冲击了侵权责任法的体系稳定，降低了法律的权威性和可预测性。《民法典》第1186条对其进行了重大修改，意在以具体的法律规定的范围限制公平责任的适用情形，规范法官的自由裁量权，体现了立法者限制适用之意图。站在公平责任的新起点，对《民法典》第1186条的限制适用具体论述具有现实意义。

为此，本文主要分为四个部分：

第一部分，对公平责任进行法理分析。从公平责任的界定入手，梳理我国公平责任的历史沿革，分析其独立价值所在。若希望达到限制适用之目的，厘清相关概念、以当下立法解释相关争议是重要前提。对于公平责任的性质，应正确界定公平责任并非归责原则，而是一种特殊的损害补偿规则，其法律定位应视为公平原则在侵权法领域的具体体现，其他规定在侵权责任编下的具体规范是公平责任的适用情形。

第二部分，论证突出公平责任限制适用的必要性。结合典型司法案例，在实证分析的基础上总结出我国公平责任的滥用问题，具体表现为：适用范围宽泛，将公平责任作为过错责任、无过错责任损害救济的兜底性条文；适用前提不明，证据不足时以公平责任“和稀泥”；构成要件界定不清，要件内涵外延过大；损害界定标准阙如，损害界定不合理等。《民法典》的重大修改科学性在于将公平责任由一条完全条款变为不完全条款，其对于公平责任进行限制适用的立法理念亦带来了司法实践的有力转变，但仍存在立法的模糊性，造成对于其适用问题的争议不断。

第三部分，对公平责任适用的条件进行准确界定。公平责任的构成要件有四：一是双方对损害发生均无过错，二是行为人与损害间具有因果关系，三是符合具体的法律规定范围，四是损失严重若不在双方间分担损失则显失公平。同时，由于《民法典》第1186条已为今后立法提供空间，故笔者认为应将《民法典》中适用公平责任的范围限制为三种情形，分别为完全民事行为能力人暂无意识致害情形、已尽到监护职责的监护人补偿情形以及因自然原因引起的紧急避险情形。公平责任不仅可以适用于财产权案件中，同时也可以在人身权案件中加以适用，但应仅限于补偿直接损失，而对于间接损失不予确定为补偿范围。损失分担比例的确定应当充分考虑实际情况，具体应当包括受害人的损失大小、影响程度、行为人的行为方式、行为与损害的关联性以及双方经济的状况等。

第四部分，提出对公平责任的司法适用建议。在我国，社会保障体系不断完备，人民法治观念权利意识不断提升，公平责任之限制适用更具正当性、科学性和时代性。在司法适用中，应明确公平责任条款的适用前提，在今后出台的司法解释中针对公平责任立法中尚存的模糊性规范予以界定，将公平责任适用的范围和损失分担的细则真正确定下来，完善司法适用的论证说明，尽快建立起多元化体系化民事损害救济模式。

Since its establishment, equitable liability has become a focus of controversy in academic circles, and disagreement over the nature and application of equitable liability has led to abuses in judicial practice, affecting the stability of the system of tort liability law and reducing the authority and predictability of the law. Article 1186 of the Civil Code has made significant changes to this law, with the intention of limiting the application of equitable liability by means of specific legal provisions and regulating the discretion of judges, reflecting the legislator's intention to limit its application. In the light of the new starting point of equitable liability, it is of practical significance to discuss the specific limitations of the application of Article 1186 of the Civil Code.

To this end, the paper is divided into four main sections.

The first part provides a jurisprudential analysis of the application of equitable liability. Starting from the definition of equitable liability, the historical development of equitable liability in China is reviewed and indicate its independent value. In order to achieve the purpose of limiting its application, it is important to clarify the relevant concepts and to interpret the relevant controversies in the light of current legislation. As to the nature of equitable liability, it should be correctly defined that equitable liability is not a principle of imputation, but a special rule of compensation for damage, and its legal position should be regarded as the specific embodiment of the principle of equity in the field of tort law, and the specific norms stipulated in other provisions under the tort liability title are the circumstances in which equitable liability applies.

In the second part, the necessity of the application of the limitation of equitable liability is argued. Combined with typical judicial cases, the abuse of equitable liability in China is summarized on the basis of judicial empirical analysis, which is manifested as follows: the scope of application is broad, with equitable liability being used as a bottom-up provision for fault liability and no-fault liability; the premises for application are unclear, with equitable liability being used to "muddy the waters" when there is insufficient evidence; the constituent elements are poorly defined, with the elements being overly broad in their connotation; the standard for defining damage is unclear, with damage being unreasonably defined, etc. The major scientific amendment of the Civil Code is the change of equitable liability from a complete article to an incomplete article, and its legislative concept of limiting the application of equitable liability has brought about a strong change in judicial practice, but the ambiguity of the legislation still exists, resulting in continuous disputes on its application.

In the third part, the conditions for the application of equitable liability are precisely defined. There are four elements of equitable liability: firstly, both parties are not at fault for the damage, secondly, there is a causal relationship between the perpetrator and the damage, thirdly, the scope of the specific legal provisions is met, and fourthly, it would be unfair if the damage is not shared between the two parties. At the same time, as Article 1186 of the Civil Code has provided room for future legislation, the author believes that the scope of the application of fair liability in the Civil Code should be limited to three situations, namely, the situation where a person with full civil capacity is unconscious of the harm caused, the situation where the guardian has done his duty to compensate, and the situation where the emergency is caused by natural causes. Equitable liability can be applied not only in property rights cases, but also in personal rights cases, but should be limited to compensating direct losses, while indirect losses should not be determined as the scope of compensation. The determination of the proportion of loss should take full account of the actual situation, including the size of the victim's loss, the degree of impact, the way the perpetrator acts, the relevance of the act to the damage and the economic situation of both parties.

In the fourth part, suggestions are made for the judicial application of equitable liability. In China, the social security system has been completed and the people's awareness of the rule of law and rights has been enhanced, so the limitation of fair liability is more legitimate, scientific and contemporary. In the judicial application, the premise of the application of the fair liability provisions should be clarified, and the ambiguous norms in the fair liability legislation should be defined in the judicial interpretation to be issued in the future, so that the scope of the application of fair liability and the rules of loss apportionment can be truly determined, and the judicial application should be improved, so that a diversified and systematic civil damage relief model can be established as soon as possible.