《人民司法》1992年第1期刊登任联营的《此案既非紧急避险又非共同侵害》 (下称《任文》)一文认为:丁某、郑某因过失造成了两个不同的损害结果,构成了两个不同的侵权行为,所以,郑某应依法赔偿丁某的损失,丁某应依法赔偿金某的损失。笔者对此不敢苟同。 首先,从案情来看,丁某行为的性质属于正当防 According to the article “People’s Justice” published in the first issue of 1992, “The case is neither an emergent hedge nor a co-infringement” (hereinafter referred to as “Ren Wen”): Ding Mou and Zheng Mou caused two different Damage results, constitute two different violations, so Jeong should compensate for the loss of Dingmou, Dingmou should compensate for the loss of a certain amount of money. I disagree with this. First of all, judging from the facts of the case, the nature of Ding’s behavior belongs to justifiable defense