法经济学分析表明,对于双方性事故,严格责任原则无法解决补偿悖论问题,不能实现有效率的结果。相反,如果法律规定的注意水平是社会最佳注意水平,过失责任规则和具有共同过失抗辩的严格责任规则都能实现有效率的结果。鉴于违约责任和侵权责任在本质上的区别,我国合同法在认定守约人的过失时没有采用“理性人”标准,而只是将守约人不适当地扩大损失的行为认定为过失。 Law and economics analysis shows that for both parties, the principle of strict liability can not solve the problem of compensation paradox and can not achieve an efficient result. On the contrary, if the level of attention required by law is the level of social best attention, the rules of negligence and strict liability rules with a common fault defense can all produce effective results. In view of the essential difference between the breach of contract liability and tort liability, the contract law of our country did not adopt the standard of “rational person” in determining the fault of the contractor, but merely regarded the failure of the compliance party to expand the loss properly as negligence.