關於愛，我是個小學生。

重大過失 → 究責性最低，如：民法§237、§245之1第2款、§355II、§410、§434、§881III
具體輕過失 → 究責性稍低，如：民法§590前段、§1176之1
抽象輕過失 → 究責性更低，如：民法§432，§468I、§590後段
無過失責任 → 究責性最高且最重，如：消費者保護法§7、§8、民法§174 (原則上負無過失責任)

具體輕過失與抽象輕過失區別：
1.責任：前者較輕、後者較重
2.法條明文：前者「與處理自己事務為同一之注意」、後者「應以善良管理人之注意為之」

何謂 ｢重大過失｣？欠缺一般人的注意義務時所形成的疏忽。所以若非 ｢極度不注意｣ ，應不致有重大過失之責，故上述法條構成要件最難符合，故究責性最低。
何謂 ｢善良管理人｣？何謂 ｢善良｣？
善良者，適洽合宜也。應源於拉丁文 'bono'；｢善良管理人｣ 即為普遍認知對於該管理行為具適洽且合宜作為之一般人謂之。
Article 38 (2) of the I.C.J. Statute gives the court power to decide a case ex aequo et bono, i. e., according to what is fair and appropriate, if the parties to the case agree. This is not the same as applying equity within the established system of law. Ex aequo et bono implies deciding according to what suits the facts of the case, regardless of the law. This is often said to be in effect a license for the court to legislate in the sense of creating new law for the parties, and is rarely resorted to because hardly ever authorized by the parties in cases before the court. (引自：Burns H. Weston et al., International Law and World Order: A Problem-Oriented Coursebook (St. Paul: West Group, 1997) 156.)