在判断承运人救助义务的责任划分时，各地法院始终将该义务视为是由善良道德风俗而产生的附随义务，而并非是基于诚实信用原则下的先合同义务，这种裁判思路导致法院在司法实践中难以作出合理与人性化的判决，尤其是在汽车运输领域，法院在这种思路的指引下往往会将案件的争议焦点聚焦于驾驶员的救助行为是否得当，这在一定程度上无疑扩大了驾驶员的义务范围。鉴于此，本文的主要内容就是从法律关系理论的分析中，寻找法院在裁判承运人救助义务思路问题上的根源所在，并将民法典第八百二十二条之规定与其他运输领域的规范性文件相比照，通过体系解释的方法，为这种裁判思路的纠偏寻找符合法理的解决路径。

When determining the division of responsibility for the carrier's rescue obligation, courts in various regions always regard this obligation as an incidental obligation arising from good moral customs, rather than a pre contractual obligation based on the principle of good faith. This judgment approach makes it difficult for courts to make reasonable and humane judgments in judicial practice, especially in the field of automobile transportation. Under the guidance of this approach, courts often focus on whether the driver's rescue behavior is appropriate, which undoubtedly expands the scope of the driver's obligations to a certain extent. In view of this, the main content of this article is to analyze the legal relationship theory and find the root of the court's approach to judging the carrier's salvage obligation. By comparing the provisions of Article 822 of the Civil Code with other normative documents in the field of transportation, and through systematic interpretation, we aim to find a legally sound solution for correcting this judgment approach.