Liability and Couple Relationship - A contribution to legal obligations in family relationships and liability issues in internal and external relations

在内部关系和外部关系中，有许多与家庭关系有关的责任风险，迄今为止主要由侵权行为法处理。令人惊讶的是，虽然家庭关系是正常的义务关系，但家庭法并没有与一般债务法联系起来。法律下的这种分类允许诉诸一般债务法的规定，不仅是关于补救办法，而且是为了确定内部关系中的义务。最重要的是，承认家庭关系是正常的义务关系的重点是相互考虑的义务，从而使伴侣有义务将关系的所有实质性情况通知对方，这为婚姻和家庭法中的许多问题提供了适当的解决办法。特别是，在实践中特别相关的“侧跳”和“杜鹃孩子”案件，以及随后的假父亲维持倒退的问题，如果一个人的论点基于母亲有义务及早提供关于假父亲可能不是生父的可能性的信息，并在违反的情况下由此得出母亲的责任，则可以以适当的方式解决。而不是承担母亲提供潜在生父身份信息的义务。虽然后一项提供信息的义务在不允许的情况下干扰了母亲的一般人格权(《基本法》第2（1)条与第1(1)条一起），但通过恢复母亲提供早期信息的义务，父亲最终非父亲身份的信息利益与母亲对其性伴侣的保密利益可以得到公平的平衡。同样的情况也适用于同样敏感的领域，例如单方面和秘密地放弃计划生育安排（例如秘密地停止使用避孕药具）。在家庭关系的外部关系中，已经证明，受害方与其伴侣之间的从属关系或情感和家庭关系本身不能成为减少直接或间接受害方索赔的理由，也不能成为限制侵权人责任的理由，特别是不能以家庭成员的共同过失为理由。也不能将家庭关系视为确立要求震惊赔偿、因亲属死亡或受伤而遭受的个人痛苦赔偿或在救助案件中获得赔偿的强制因素。因此，情感关系或家庭关系不能构成侵权行为人责任的延伸。

There are numerous liability risks related to family relationships in internal as well as external relations, which have so far been handled primarily by the law of torts. It is striking that the family law is not linked back to the general debt law, although family relationships are normal obligatory relations. This classification under the law al­ lows for recourse to the provisions of the general debt law, not only with regard to remedies but also with a view to the ascertainment of obligations in internal relations. Above all, the recognition that family relationships being normal obligatory relations are focused on the reciprocal duty on consideration, resulting in a duty of the partners to inform the other on all circumstances substantial to the relationship, provides for a proper solution to many problems in marriage and family law. In particular, the cases of "side-jumps" and "cuckoo-kids", which are especially relevant in practice, as well as the subsequent questions of a maintenance regress by the pseudo­ fathers can be solved in an appropriate manner, if one bases one's argument on an obligation of a mother to provide early information about the possibility that the pseudo-father might not be the biological father and draws thereon, in the event of a breach, a liability of the mother, instead of assuming a mother's obligation to provide information about the identity of the potential biological father. While the latter obligation to provide information impermissibly interferes with the general right of personality of the mother (Article 2 (1) in conjunction with Article 1 (1) of the Basic Law), by reverting to an obligation of the mother to provide early information the informational interest of the father in his eventual non-fatherhood and the interest in confidentiality of the mother concerning her sexual partners can be brought into a fair balance. The same applies to similarly sensitive areas such as the one-sided and secret departure from family planning arrangements (for example, the secret withdrawal of contraceptives). In the external relations of family relationship, it has been shown that the affiliation or the emotional and familial relationship between the injured party and his partner as such cannot justify a reduction in the claims of the victim harmed directly or indirectly respectively cannot justify a limitation of the liability of the tortfeasor, in particular not by reason of contributory negligence on the part of the family member. Nor can a family relationship be regarded as a compulsory factor in the establishment of a claim to shock compensation, compensation for personal suffering due to the death or injury of a relative, or compensation in rescue cases. Therefore, an emotion­ al or familial relationship cannot establish an extension of the liability of the tortfeasor.