过失的核心是没有认识，因此，谁需对损害结果负责便取决于其是否“应该认识”。换言之，谁、在什么场合、应该尽到多大的注意义务才能免除自己的犯罪责任？由于涉及开放的构成要件，如何在理论上解答该问题是过失犯的难题。既有方案从不同的侧面给出注意义务的规范基础和判断方法，但均面临严峻问题。一则，给出的判断方案含混其辞。如“能力”“允许”“角色”等概念缺乏清晰内涵；二则，无法说明过失犯罪在整个法体系中的独特性。即没有讲明过失犯的可罚性依据、过失犯与其他犯罪类型的区别、过失犯立法的特殊性等问题，使过失犯罪失去独立存在的意义。过失犯的注意义务需在新的基础上重新建构。在理论上，注意义务的分配需要考虑背后的权力结构。即应该根据权力大小划分注意义务的大小，以实现权力平等。就此而言，注意义务应该被设定为权力结构中的上位者对下位者的积极义务——上位者在与下位者交往时“应该认识并积极采取避免措施”，防止后者陷入困境，否则便是一种过失。所谓上位者，即自然性权力关系中的成年健康男性（之于女性、未成年人等）、制度性权力关系中的官员（之于普通公民）、企业（之于工人）等和认知性权力关系中的特别认知者（之于处于信息盲区的人）。过失犯中的传统理论难题在新框架下可得到解决。在实践中，仅当如下条件成就时构成注意义务之违反。第一，行为人是权力关系中的上位者，占据优势地位；在某个特定权力类型中，下位者不构成针对上位者的过失犯罪。第二，上位者应该以弱者的需求、而非自身内部圈子为核心履行自己的注意义务，否则属于注意义务的不充分履行。第三，上位者应该在不使自己陷入困境的前提下运用自己的资源采取各种积极措施防止下位者陷入困境；此外，上位者注意义务的履行不在固定的时点，而是一个持续性过程。具体而言，在认知权力关系中，特别认知地位产生对他人的积极义务，此时特别信息者应该考虑到潜在对方认识到相关事实的难度，采取措施防止潜在弱者陷入困境。在制度性权力关系中，官员、企业和医生等主体因其制度性优势地位对普通公民、工人和患者等负有积极义务，此时官僚系统应该持续保证下位者的生存困境得以负责和不断改善。在自然性权力关系中，人的固有脆弱性（老、弱、病、残等）要求成年健康主体尽到积极义务；女性在某些情况下要求男性尽到积极义务，此时上位者应该以语境中最弱者将如何行动作为自己行动的标准。
At the heart of negligence is the lack of awareness, and therefore who is responsible for the outcome of the damage depends on whether or not he or she "ought to have known". In other words, who, on what occasion, and with what degree of care should be exempted from liability for a crime? The theoretical answer to this question is a difficult problem for negligence because of the open-ended constituent elements involved.The existing solutions give the normative basis of the duty of care and the method of judgment from different sides, but all of them face serious problems. For one thing, the methods they offer are ambiguous. For example, the concepts of "ability", "permission" and "role" lack clear connotations; secondly, they fail to explain the uniqueness of negligent crimes in the whole legal system. That is to say, it does not explain the basis for the punishability of negligence, the difference between negligence and other types of crime, the specificity of the legislation on negligence, etc., so that the criminal negligence loses the significance of its independent existence. The duty of care for negligent offenders needs to be reconstructed on a new basis.Theoretically, the allocation of the duty of care needs to take into account the underlying power structure, i.e., the duty of care should be divided according to the level of power in order to achieve equality of power. In this regard, the duty of care should be framed as a positive obligation of the superior to the inferior in the power structure - the superior "should recognize and actively take steps" to prevent the inferior from stucking into dilemma, otherwise it is a form of negligence. The so-called superiors, i.e., adult and healthy males in natural power relations (to females, minors, etc.), officials in institutional power relations (to ordinary citizens), corporations (to workers), etc., and special cognizers in cognitive power relations (to those who are in the information-blind zone). The traditional theoretical difficulties in negligent offenses can be resolved under the new framework.In practice, a breach of the duty of care is constituted only when the following conditions are fulfilled. First, the perpetrator is the superior in the power relationship and occupies a dominant position; in a given type of power, the inferior does not constitute a negligent crime against the superior. Second, the superior should fulfill his or her duty of care by focusing on the needs of the inferior, not on the obligations of his or her own inner circle; otherwise, the duty of care is not adequately fulfilled. Thirdly, the superior should use his or her resources to take positive measures to prevent the inferior from being placed in a dilemma under the premise of not placing himself or herself in a dilemma; moreover, the performance of the superior‘s duty of care was not a fixed point in time, but an ongoing process.Specifically, in cognitive power relations, where special cognitive status can create positive obligations to others, the special informant should take into account the difficulty of the potential counterparty recognizing the relevant facts and take measures to prevent the potentially weaker person from being placed in a dilemma. In institutional power relations, where subjects such as officials, corporations, and doctors have positive obligations to ordinary citizens, workers, and patients because of their institutional status, the bureaucracy should continually ensure that the existential plight of the inferior is accounted for and continually ameliorated. In naturalistic power relations, where the inherent vulnerability of human beings (old age, infirmity, illness, disability, etc.) demands positive obligations from healthy adult subjects; and where females in some cases demand positive obligations from males, the superior should take as the criterion for how he or she should act how the weakest person in the context will act.
