Study On Responsibility Regulations Of High-altitude Parabolic Infringement Cases

With the modernization of the cities, the urban residents generally live in condominiums. As a result, the damage suffered by a victim who was hurt by something thrown by others in the building or something hung in the building is hard to be properly compensated if the infringer can’t be determined. Before the implementation of Tort Liability Law, high-altitude parabolic cases hadn’t been viewed as an independent infringement by our nation’s laws or related judicial interpretations, leading to considerable controversies on the issue of suitable laws in practice. Since no clear legal provisions exist, the court’s view and treatment on such disputes also differ a lot. To give victims adequate relief, and to facilitate the users of the building actively carrying out the duty of custody, maintenance and care of the buildings and their related items, the87th clause of the Tort Liability Law expressly provides the responsibility for high-altitude parabolic cases. However, the provision was highly controversial at as early as the drafting stage of the Tort Liability Law. Although it was ultimately preserved, the academics are still mixing it. Based on the above factors, we feel that it’s necessary to discuss it.The main part is organized as follows. The first chapter presents two classical high-altitude parabolic infringement cases with similar details. However, the verdicts of the courts are highly different, showing very different attitudes of the district court toward parabolic infringements before the introduction of Tort Liability Law. Of course, there exit a lot of similar cases. As the Tort Liability Law coming into force on July1st in2010, a clear unified legal authority was eventually established for the treatment of these kinds of cases. However, the academic circle is still keeping a watchful eye on it. The basic reason lies in that although the purpose of the legislators is trying to compensate the loss of the victims, the penalty to the innocents makes it unjustified and defective. To avoid infringing on the innocent due to abuse, the definition of the provision and its applicable scope should be explained explicitly.The second chapter talks about the basic principle of high-altitude parabolic infringements. It begins with a deep analysis of the concept of high-altitude parabolic behavior. We see that it is much more proper to call it’liability of infringement caused by objects tossed from the building or hung in the building’. Comparing it with joint dangerous act and falling-off-building damage, we focus on the differences between them while admitting that they have similarities in some certain. On this basis, it can be concluded that it’s obviously improper to deal with a parabolic damage case using rules which are applied to the other two cases mentioned before. We then give an analysis to the constitutive requirements of high-altitude parabolic infringements. Because of its particularities, the constitutive requirements for general infringements can’t be applied to it. At last, we give a summary of the special points of high-altitude parabolic cases with respect to the general cases.In Chapter three, we talk about the controversies of responsibility regulations of high-altitude parabolic cases. We first review the three draft legislations of the Tort Liability Law. The regulations were modified word by word, showing the rigorous attitudes of the legislators. Next we have classified the current main viewpoints on this regulation in theoretical circles with some representative affirmative and negative opinions summarized. Referring to the provision of high-altitude parabolic action in foreign laws, we then try to get a more unified and rational view. In the process of European or Latin American civil legislations, they have tried to complete the principle of Roman law. This may provide some more proper legal interpretation of our future legislation. Some useful inspirations are outlined at last.In Chapter four, some comments are given to the current tort liability provisions of high-altitude parabolic infringements. We objectively point out some defects of the current responsibility regulations from both the legal norm aspect and legal value aspect. We also try to propose some shallow suggestions for improvements. What we can do is to firstly respect and observe the Tort Liability Law. Meanwhile, other related the law legislations and protective measures should be carried out to give the victims more effective compensations.In conclusion, we see that high-altitude parabolic case is difficult to treat properly. Although the current Tort Liability Law may provide some criterions, there exit a lot of defects in itself. An urge issue is how to correctly deal with the interests balance between public safety, rights of the victim and the innocent third part. We hope that this paper can do a favor to the perfection of responsibility regulations of high-altitude parabolic behavior. Our ultimate goal is to provide just compensation to the victims of high-altitude parabolic infringement cases.