共同过失行为在实践中是屡见不鲜的,由于立法的不完善,解决此种行为是有理论和实践意义的。以一起过失致人重伤案为视角,对共同行为之“共同”的定性上主要有犯罪构成说和行为共同说,比较两种学说后得出这里的“共同”更多的是行为的共同。但是,光有行为的共同还不足以说就成立共同犯罪,还需要满足行为人主体资格和共同的注意义务这两个要件,这种共同行为才可能成立共同犯罪。 Common misconduct is a common practice in practice. Due to imperfect legislation, it is of theoretical and practical significance to solve such an act. From the perspective of a serious injury case caused by negligence, we can say that there are two main theories of criminal constitution and behavior in the characterization of the “common” behavior of common behavior. Comparing the two doctrines, we can conclude here that “common ” is more Common behavior. However, the common act of light and behavior is not enough to say that the joint crime should be established, and the qualifications of the actor as the main body and the common duty of care must be satisfied. Only such a joint act may establish a common crime.