Research On Tort Law Supplement Responsibility

In accordance with the "Interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court of Some Issues concerning the Application of Law for the Trial of Cases on Compensation for Personal Injury", if the obligor for security guaranty has any fault where a third person’s tort results in an injury, he shall bear corresponding supplementary compensation liabilities. In such situation, there exist three subjects of legal relation, which are the obligee to compensation, the obligor to compensation who directly responsible and the obligor to corresponding supplementary compensation. Since supplementary compensation that shall be beard by the obligor for security guaranty is essential featured by its supplementarity, which means that, only if the person directly responsible cannot be affirmed or has no or less ability to compensate, the obligor for security guaranty shall bear certain compensation liabilities according to the extent of his fault, that it is so different from several liability, joint and several liability,ect. The emergence of supplementary liabilities in tort law aims at an effective solution to the infringement cases that a third person involved in. In those cases, the reason why the obligor for security guaranty should bear corresponding supplementary compensation liabilities while there is a third person shall be directly responsible is that the nonfeasance of the former and the misfeasance of the latter are different forms of fault and have diverse causative potency to the identical damage. In the view of causative potency, the misfeasance of the tortfeasor entirely causes the damage while the nonfeasance of the obligor for security guaranty has only indirectly provided a possibility for the infringement. In the view of subjective fault, the third person is always intentional while the obligor for security guaranty not.As there is no example in both theory and legislation in other nations, the birth of supplementary responsibility has aroused so many attentions and controversies. Although the "tort law of PRC" has stipulated supplementary responsibility, the rationality, structure and scope of such a legal system is far from a consensus in academe, which more or less result in the chaos in practice. In the view of the supplementary responsibility of obligor for security guaranty, this paper will start with a legal analyst of present legislation in order to find its rationality, then ruminate some limitations and finally provide some suggestions for both theory and practice. This paper divides in three parts.The first part discusses the theory basic, from the concept and legal characters to the effect and rules to distribute liabilities. So the author thinks the supplementary responsibility is an independent tort responsibility form, which is distinct from several liability, joint and several liability, with its own advantages.The second part, by first introduce of rules regarding security guaranty in common law and continental law countries, emphasizes on two main hang-up in constitutive elements of supplementary responsibility. The first is the illegal and fault analyst of omission to carry the obligation to guaranty security, the second is the causality between the nonfeasance and the damage. The author points out that the rational man standard should be carried to judge whether the obligor has accomplished the task to guaranty security and an overlook-view taking causation theories in both common and continental law system should be taken to estimate whether there exists causality between the nonfeasance and the damage.The third part, on the base of the rationality of supplementary responsibility that has been mentioned before, particularly bars around the scope of the present supplementary responsibility system as well as its limitations, and finally some suggestions for amelioration.