探讨过失犯中的结果回避可能性，作为前提需对过失犯的基本立场给予清晰判断。新旧过失论对立呈现消弭倾向，根本原因是旧过失论开始强调结果回避义务之违反，新旧过失论的差异在形式上被“填平”。“消弭论”的走向应予肯定，它是机能主义刑法学开出来的“一剂良方”。通过打造简明的过失犯构造，过失不法的实质可以表述为：结果的预见可能性以及可归责的结果回避义务之违反。体系定位与具体运用是支撑结果回避可能性理论的“两大基石”。在体系定位方面，通过对当前存在的多种代表性体系方案的梳理和检讨，可以认为：相较于单一制方案，区分制方案更具合理性；相较于单一定位说，多重定位说中的“事前事后说”更具合理性。根据这种观点，结果回避可能性存在双重定位，即事前的结果回避可能性与事后的结果回避可能性。其中，事前的结果回避可能性包括了结果回避义务的履行可能性和履行必要性；事后的结果回避可能性探讨的则是义务违反关联性或结果回避义务的履行有效性。在具体运用方面，有必要集中处理结果回避可能性问题的六大司法难点，即预见可能性的说理难点、结果回避义务的判断难点、合义务替代行为的筛选难点、同一侵害结果的认定难点、结果避免标准的选择难点、规范保护目的的定位难点。应充分发挥预见可能性理论的作用，将预见可能性的结果回避义务关联性理论、信息收集义务等理论运用到案件说理中。只有部分行政法规范能够作为刑法注意义务的判断资料，关于甄选方法，应当与法益的保护相关联，直接或间接指向构成要件结果。合义务替代行为的筛选规则为：在预见可能性范围内，尽可能地以最小行为负担为原则，来实现行为人最大行为利益。关于同一侵害结果的认定，应采取“具体结果说”。风险升高理论存在将实害犯转变为具体危险犯的疑问，但其问题意识值得重视。必须承认，一种弱化了的归责标准在实务案件的解决中具有重要意义。显著的风险升高理论与可避免性理论之间的关系，借助类型化思维去说明，可能更为合适。利用规范保护目的理论解决结果回避可能性问题的做法值得商榷，由于注意规范保护目的的范围不明确、不具体，有必要对其适用空间进行限缩。此外，结果回避可能性的整套理论方案有必要经由“转译”过程抵达实务应用。

It is necessary to make a clear judgment on the basic position of negligent crime in order to discuss the possibility of avoiding result in negligent crime. The opposition between the new theory of negligence and the old theory of negligence tends to dissolve, the fundamental reason is that the old theory of negligence starts to emphasize the breach of result avoidance duty, and the difference between the two theories is eliminated in form. The trend of "fusion theory" should be affirmed. It is a good solution given by the theory of functionalism criminal law. Through the construction of a concise composition of negligent crime, the essence of unlawfulness of negligent crime can be expressed as: the result foreseeability and the imputable breach of result avoidance duty.Systematic positioning and specific application are two important parts of supporting the theory of possibility of avoiding result. In terms of systematic positioning, by sorting out and reviewing the existing solutions of various representative systems, it can be concluded that: compared with the plan unitary solution, the differentiated solution is more reasonable, and compared with the single positioning, "ex-ant and ex-post theory" in the multiple positioning is more reasonable. According to this view, there is a dual positioning of the possibility of avoiding result, that is, ex-ant possibility of avoiding result and ex-post possibility of avoiding result. Among them, the ex-ant possibility of avoiding result includes the fulfill possibility of result avoidance duty and fulfill necessity of result avoidance duty. The ex-post possibility of avoiding result is to discuss the normative relevance on the breach of duty or the fulfill availability of result avoidance duty.In terms of specific application, it is necessary to focus on solving the six judicial difficulties in the problems of possibility of avoiding result, namely, the reasoning of foreseeability, the judgment of result avoidance duty, the screening of legitimate alternative behavior, the determination of same result, the selection of result avoidance criteria, and the positioning of protection purpose of the norm. The function of the theory of foreseeability should be brought into full play. Such as the relevance theory between foreseeability and result avoidance duty, and the theory of information collection duty should be applied to the reasoning of cases. Only part of the administrative regulations can be used as the judgment material for the duty of care in criminal law. As for the selection method, it should be related to the protection of legal interests and directly or indirectly lead to the results of constituent elements. The screening rule of the legitimate alternative behavior is: within the range of the foreseeability, the principle of minimizing the behavioral burden as far as possible is adopted to realize the maximum behavioral benefit of the actor. As for the determination of the same result, "specific result theory" should be adopted. The theory of increased risk has the problem of turning actual damage offense into concrete potential damage offense, but its problem consciousness deserves attention. It must be acknowledged that a weakened standard of imputation is of great significance in the settlement of practical cases. It may be more appropriate to explain the relationship between the theory of conspicuous increased risk and the theory of avoidance by means of typological thinking. It is doubtful to use the theory of protection purpose of the norm to solve the problem of possibility of avoiding result. Because the scope of protection purpose of the norm is not clear and specific, it is necessary to limit the applicable space. In addition, it is necessary for the whole theoretical solution of possibility of avoiding result to reach practical application through the process of "translation".