Research On Animal's Liability Under Tort Liability Law Of People's Republic Of China

Since the Tort Liability Law of People's Republic of China (hereinafter to be referred as "Tort Liability Law") was promulgated with effect on 1 July 2010, it has been strongly argued theoretically and practically in terms of the liability for tort of domesticated animals. I discussed the liability for tort of the domesticated animals from three aspects, the general provisions, the special provisions and the practical thinking on the appliance of the animals'liability provisions in the Tort Liability Law, as well as expressed some new opinions of my own.The first part is the analyses to the general provisions on animals' liability. Above all, I gave a brief introduction of legislation and judicial practice before and after enactment of Tort Liability Law by comparing the analysis, affirmed the Animal's Damage Liability principles generally attributable to the principle of liability without fault, which summarized the animal virulence elements of general liability, including feeding the animals, dangerous animals, the realization of the victim's harm, dangerous animals, the realization of a causal link between the injury. The "domestic animal" should pay attention to three aspects of understanding. First, the "animals" here should be in accordance with the general idea of the community to understand its meaning. Second, the "animals" do not include the wild animals. Third, they should include the military, police animal and research institutions, professional performing arts groups, and other units because of their work and animals. In addition, the realization of the dangerous animals is the premise to the Animal's Damage Liability. Second, I clarified the responsibility of the general compensation for animal virulence identity of the subject identified. Animal Damage Liability in general compensation for the subject is an animal keeper or manager, their identity depends on the identification and use of animals for whom the interests of the power to decide who is on the animal. The animal keeper or administrator is liable for obligations of the proper management of animals. Finally, I concluded the summary of the exemptions and the burden of proof principle. Animal Damage Liability Disclaimer, diminished responsibility for the damage occurred or the subject of expansion is being infringed by a person's intentional or gross negligence, the.specific application of the damage depends on the reasons for the occurrence of a force, and the applicable burden of proof. Hereinto the dangerous animals which are prohibited from keeping can be exempted because of the "Act of God" but not applied to the other domestic animals. The family members for domestic animals should be identified adult living together for the common farmers and managers, the victim can choose one or more persons to claim rights.The second part is the analyses on the special provisions of the Animal Damage Liability. I classified the relevant provisions of the Animal Damage Liability in Tort Liability Law, as five special provisions, regulations were violated Damage Liability animals, prohibits the keeping of dogs and other dangerous animals potent Damage Liability, zoo animals cause damage liability, abandonment, escape the responsibility of animal virulence, due to the fault of third party liability caused animal virulence. I practiced with a large number of cases, by comparing the analysis, respectively, from the constituent elements, defenses, and other aspects of nature of the responsibility to be detailed interpretation of these special provisions. First, the violation of regulations Damage Liability in animals is the responsibility of liability without fault, on the premise that "not to take security measures to animals." I analyzed the constituent elements of "regulations" scope and "not to take security measures to animals," the definition of the victim with intent or gross negligence, can not waive or reduce the animal keeper or administrator's responsibility. Second, prohibits the keeping of dogs and other dangerous animals potent Damage Liability is a more stringent no-fault liability, the infringer is not responsible for any reduction or exemption of the subject. The author analyzes the elements of its composition, "prohibits the keeping of dangerous animals" understanding and "particularly dangerous to achieve." In addition, the special instructions of the guide dogs do not belong to the scope of spirits; Third, the responsibility of the zoo's animal virulence presumption of fault liability, but its reasonable to be seen. I analyzed the constituent elements in the scope of "zoo" and on the "zoo's conscientiousness" found. Fourth, the abandonment, escape the responsibility of animal virulence liability without fault, but there are exemptions, including abandonment, escape of animals was an animal shelter and escape back to nature. Fifth, the fault caused by a third party the responsibility of animal virulence, and the third man and the keeper or manager does not really bear joint and several liabilities. The author analyzes the constituent elements in the "third person" in the scope of "third person's fault," and summarizes the relevant provisions of its civil law than the legislative changes.The Last part is the practical thinking on the appliance of the animal damage liability in the Tort Liability Law. I put up three thought-provoking questions after deliberation and meditation. First is on how to dress the relationship among the three no-fault liability terms 78 to 80 In my opinion, based on the clause 78, if the plaintiff sued the defendant may be argued that the plaintiffs willful or gross negligence of its defenses. If the plaintiff based on the clause 79 prosecution, if proved that the defendant "violation of regulations", and "not to take security measures to animals", the plaintiff, the defendant shall not claim for intentional or gross negligence defenses. Ten according to the eighth if the plaintiff sued the defendant, if proved that prohibits the keeping of breeding dogs and other dangerous animals potent, the defendant claims the plaintiff shall not be intentional or gross negligence of its defenses. Followed the provisions of the zoo animals the clause 81, Damage Liability presumption of fault liability principle is reasonable. I believe that, combined with the risk of animals, nature and risk of profit institutions of unequal sharing of these three requirements, the words "Tort Liability Act" the clause 81 responsibility under the principle of presumption of fault to apply the principle of liability without fault. Finally, eighty-second article of the abandoned animals Damage Liability escape whether in practice operable. In my opinion, it's not very easy to operate this clause. However, I consider it can be implemented to be more practical of the related provisions in the Tort Liability Law through strengthening the liability of the government, perfecting the danger liability principle and improving the pets register system.