The Study Of Tortious Liability Of Mission

Behavior being hit by, for the civil main body of coordination in modern society liberty composes in reply the rights and interests protecting the civil impossible already not being approved as tort. But, not being hit by as tort dispute, now available already unable sufficient theory making an explanation happening in actual judicial practice is not tort responsibility problem. Make a general observation of civil legal system of our country, in the generality article not having definitely about not being hard and their responsibility article, embodying in "PRC tort responsibility models after " as far as criterion however comparison are not dispersed as tort and their some treatment of responsibility aspect. Being tort and being tort is two kinds independent tort patterns, with being tort compare no difficult to find that, do not have it’s proper rationale, moreover, characteristic property also having the person only in the aspect composing important condition and the characteristic not only as tort. Specifically for ceaselessness not being tort law case in true judicial affair appears, we ought to work out out a set of the regulation perfecting relative relatively rational treatment relatively not being tort. Not only that, some scholar thinks the behavior composing in reply in terms of theory with civil generality duty a judiciary having close connection in true affair, being able to will violate civil generality duty even as tort or not brings into to middle "tort responsibility models after ". The author thinks that this person property damage behavior bringing about to violating civil generality duty is brought into the method of work arriving at "tort responsibility models after " is that no advisable, ascertaining that and regulation are in principle in the process of concrete operations is that the very difficult boundary is stable. The main body of a book is got rid of besides the foreword composes in reply a conclusion, is allotted four parts being in progress comment that:Part I is not to be the tort summary. Being a part’s turn is not to carry out a boundary stable as tort concept mainly, shows clearly the main body of a book object of study, sets a limit to the thesis research range, being based on a boundary stable not being the tort concept, composing important condition to the concept, characteristic, differentiation, rationale, responsibility form with action not being perfect, to analysisSecond be that the two of fundamental law is about not being perfect responsibility legislation comparison. Continent genealogy of law, UK-US genealogy of law are not tort legislation current situation as far as the legislation regulation not being tort responsibility still has our country to analysis.PartⅢis innovative article part. Carry out analysis on civil generality duty and the relation not being tort. The rationale concept classification and forbidden portability helping duty’s in danger are discussed as well as legislation block of wood about four aspect as forbidden portability are in progress.PartⅣis that our country does not suggest that as perfect tort responsibility legislation relevance. Be not tort responsibility legislation current situation and suggestion on legislation mainly from our country to analysis.