Research On The Security Obligation In Specific Place

With economic development and the expansion of dangerous areas, people's demands on security is ever-increasing. The demand of people to security exists each area of life. The existence of security obligation has played an important role in protecting victim's body and property for its special function. Though the nature of security obligation is to require individuals to actively avoid causing damages to other person's body and property, this liability of active action is not a general obligation, it is indeed a protective obligation arisen between specific parties, based on specific social relationship or specific legal stipulation or under specific circumstances. In recent years, a large number of disputes on violation of security obligation take place in banks, hotels, sport areas or other specific places, and in deed, people's expectation of security of specific places should be higher than other places. Therefore the framework of this paper defined the scope of the study in specific places-the places within a certain time and space which were owned or controlled by specific subjects to engage in certain activities. If the study of security obligation of specific place is the definition from the "quantity" in appearance, then, the study of content of obligation is the definition from the aspect of "degree", and the analysis of the nature of obligation is the grasp on the "quality". This paper is trying to define the security obligation more clearly from the "quantity", "degree" and "quality". Thus, security obligations should be defined as: the specific subjects who are engaged in business activities or the other social activities in a specific places which were owned or controlled by them, should protect the personal and property security of specific relative public persons in a reasonable range. And the theory of danger control, trust and profit can be the legal rationality and basis of security obligation.Because the union tort law has a development tendency to the infringement responsibility law, the definition of security obligation, in fact, is in order to make the tortious liability for violation of security obligation more clearly. Since security obligation was defined as the statutory infringement obligation by analysis in the first chapter, the liability for violation of security obligation should be statutory infringement liability. Different from general infringement activities, violation to security obligation is in a form of omission, so this made it more difficult to define the principle of imputation, elements, fault behavior and causal relationship of violation of security obligation. At the same time, it provided a new chance to perfect tort law. The application of "rational person" in tort law brought about a fundamental turn for the better on solution to this difficult problem, simplified the judgment of fault and removed out the necessity of illegal act of the elements. As to principle of imputation, though the conductor with the security obligation has initialized one kind of duty from the law or the moral that shall be regarded as a fault conduct when the conductor violates the security obligation, it doesn't mean that fault isn't considered, because the use of objective criteria to judge subjective state is not to say that impossible fault must be imposed on the actor. It is still a liability of presumptive fault, but liability without fault. Accordingly, the liability of conductor can be relieved by providing evidence of no-fault. In order to define the liability of violation of security obligation, the paper studied deeply the causal relationship and supplementary liability which were disputed a lot by scholars. As the act of violation of security obligation is the act of omission, Social value should be taken into consideration when judging the causation between the act of omission and the damages of the plaintiff. The rule is if the Cause exists, the Result won't appear. Regarding supplementary liability, it is a rational style of liability for its balance between the rights of conductor and rights of plaintiff.