Researches On The Totr Liabilities Caused By Unidentified Falling Objects

With the ever-accelerating process of urbanization, there are more and moremulti-storey residences and high-rise buildings in cities. Some citizens get used tothrow the garbage out from the windows regularly due to the relatively poor qualities.People discard garbage casually and recklessly from the windows, no mater what it is,such as fruit cores, waste paper, cigarette butts, a whole bag of waste, scrap buildingmaterials or even larger waste. Because of this, falling objects damages events alsoincrease. These throwing objects not only pollute the environment, but also becomethe weapon of wounding people and breaking things. But in reality, in more cases,objectively, it is very difficult to find the specific tortfeasor, because that there are toomany residents in one high-rise building. This brings a particularly difficult problem,which is also known as tort liabilities caused by unidentified falling objects.This paper takes the tort liabilities caused by unidentified falling objects as itstopic, attempting to fix this problem and make some strategic suggestions throughanalyzing relevant legal acts, clauses, cases, and theories.This paper includes these following parts:The first chapter illustrates the logic flaws of the Tort Liability Law. The TortLiability Law enacted in2010established the system of liability for damage causedby objects, which, to a great extent, solve the allocation of liability for damage causedby objects. There is still a great dispute on Article87, while the Tort Liability Law haswon a positive recognition. Analyzing the theoretical foundation of Article87, thejustifications of the dominant theory of the legal profession are protection of humanrights, compassion for the weak, public safety, the allocation of loss, and damageprevention. In this section, a comparative observation on extraterritorial relevantlegislation has been done. There is an essentially different between the “throwingdown and throwing the responsibility” of Ancient Rome and Article87of the TortLiability Law, which is, former one is used under the condition that the tortfeasor isidentified, while later one is used under the condition that the tortfeasor staysunknown. Compared with Civil Code of other countries, such as France, Germany,Italy, the Netherlands, Ethiopia, Chile, the United States and other countries, a conclusion could be drawn that Article87of the Tort Liability Law is not the generalpractice of the national civil legislation, but an exception. Although Article87of theTort Liability Law performs a strong moral feeling, but it still has serious logic flaws.The second chapter analyzes the confusion of the legislation for the legalproperty of throwing objects and falling objects. The Tort Liability Law attributesthrowing objects and falling objects, the two different things to the same kind, and setthe same modes of liability and the same excusatio. This section analyzes thesubjective fault forms, the obligation basis of behavior, and the nature of liability oftortfeasor. The Tort Liability Law dose not distinguish the liability caused by fallingobjects due to minor negligence and the liability caused by throwing objects due tosubjective purpose, which is very illogical and irrigorous.The third chapter focuses on the wrong application of the fault liability principleand the causation presumption. First, by analyzing the basic content and applicationof the fault liability principle, this part illustrates the misuse of the fault liabilityprinciple on the tort liabilities caused by unidentified falling objects. It offendsagainst its own logic to apply the fault liability principle to the occasions which thetortfeasor stays unknown. In such cases, only one of the defendants may have or doeshave fault, while other defendants have absolute no subjective and objective faults, inother words, they are innocent. So it is apparently wrong to use the fault liabilityprinciple in such occasions. Second, the misuse of the causation presumption.Causation presumption applies and only can apply to the occasion which thedefendant has implemented tort act.The conclusion chapter proposes multiple prevention and treatment mechanism.This section denies the compensation supplied by the country or the propertycompany, and put forward my own suggestions: First, the Legislature should classifythe virulence behavior of throwing objects as criminal case；Second，the virulencebehavior of falling objects should be given an administrative penalty; Third, enactcivil liability for compensation; Forth, vigorously develop the commercial insurancesystem; Fifth, improve the state aiding system.