《民法典》第1005条规定了负有“法定救助义务”的主体在他人生命、健康、身体权遭受侵害或处于危险时，应予救助，体现了保障自然人生命健康等重大权益的价值导向，也为不作为侵权制度的完善创造了条件。在救助义务的规则制定方面，我国目前采用列举式的立法模式，救助义务的规定散见于各规范性文件中，且规范表达方式不一，这导致了法院在裁判此类案件时适用法律、说理上的困难与混乱，不利于制度目的的实现，故对立法与实践的经验、成果进行梳理具有现实上的迫切性、必要性。 目前，法定救助义务规则在理论研究与实践方面的疑难点在于：第一，“法定救助义务”概念、来源如何确定；第二，违反法定救助义务的认定应适用何种标准；第三，如何对违反法定救助义务的不作为进行侵权法评价。本文主要通过实证研究与文献研究的方法对前述问题进行研究分析。为避免混淆道德与法律义务而提出过高的行为要求，实践中应对法定救助义务作如下两层次理解：首先，是指法律法规明确规定的救助义务；其次，是指对现有条文进行体系解释产生的救助义务。违反法定救助义务的评价与救助义务的内容直接相关。救助义务的内容包括亲自实施救助与向外界求助，在个案中具体确定救助义务的思路是，优先适用规范上的救助义务内容标准，如无，则可以结合各相关要素，具体判断主体应如何实施“合理限度内”的“尽可能”的救助。在侵权法评价方面，违反法定救助义务原则上适用一般侵权构成要件。其加害行为表现为不救助或救助不充分，以行为外观为判断标准。在损害发生的场景下，以规范保护目的说可以论证因果关系的存在。过错判断时，对具备相关专业知识的主体适用勤勉尽责义务，而对一般人适用与处理自己事务为同一注意义务标准。依侵权法责任承担相关理论，在无直接侵权人的场合，适用与有过失规则；在有直接侵权人时，救助义务人对外承担补充责任。在履行法定救助义务给受助人造成损害时，救助人原则上应当承担侵权责任，但救助人过失轻微且只造成轻微后果的，可以免责。

Article 1005 of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China stipulates that subjects subject to the "legal obligation of rescue" shall provide rescue when the life, health or bodily rights of others are infringed upon or in danger, which embodies the value orientation of protecting the life and health of natural persons and other major rights and interests, and also creates conditions for improving the system of omission infringement. At present, China adopts an enumerative legislative mode to formulate the rules on rescue obligations, and the provisions on rescue obligations are scattered in various regulatory documents and expressed in different standard ways, which has led to difficulties and confusion in the application of laws and reasoning by courts in adjudicating such cases and is not conducive to the realization of system purposes. Therefore, it is urgent and necessary to sort out the experience and achievements of legislation and practice. The difficulties and doubts in the theoretical research and practice of the rules on the legal obligation of rescue lie in: first, how to determine the concept and source of the "legal obligation of rescue"; second, what kind of standards shall be applied to the determination of violation of the legal obligation of rescue; third, how to conduct the evaluation of the omission in violation of obligations in the Tort Law. This paper mainly studies and analyzes the aforesaid issues through empirical research and literature research. In order to avoid confusion between moral and legal obligations and to put forward too high behavior requirements, the legal obligation of rescue should be explained in the following two levels in practice: firstly, it refers to the rescue obligation clearly stipulated by laws and regulations; secondly, it refers to the rescue obligation arising from the systematic interpretation of the existing provisions.The evaluation of violation of the legal obligation of rescue is directly related to what is the content thereof, which includes rescue personally and turning to the outside world. The way to determine the rescue obligation in a specific case shall be to apply first to the standard on the content of rescue obligation. If none, then to determine how a subject should rescue" within a reasonable limit" and "as far as possible" by taking into account other relevant elements. In the evaluation of the tort law, violation of the legal obligation of rescue is applicable to general constitutive elements of the tort. Its injurious act either shows that it is not rescue or is improper, which shall be determined on the basis of the appearance of its behavior. In the scenario where the damage occurs, its existence can be proved by the doctrine of normative protection. When judging the fault, the duty of due diligence should be applied to the subjects with relevant professional knowledge, and the same standard of duty of care should be applied to the ordinary people as to their own affairs. According to the theory of liability under tort law, the contributory negligence rule is applicable when there is no direct tortfeasor. When there is a direct tortfeasor, the salvor shall bear the supplementary responsibilities. In principle, an obligor shall bear tort liability when performing the legal obligation of rescue which has caused harm to the recipient; however, if the negligence of the obligor is minor and has only caused minor consequences, he may be exempted from liability.