Talking About The Operator’s Security Obligations

The market economy has been established since the end of1990s, our country faces to rapid transformation, there is a sharp change occurred in the social politics, economy, culture and family life. People in widely accepted the benefits of the social development and economy prosperity, and also suffers harm of these. People takes party in social or economics activities may suffer from property or person damage, so that consciously or unconsciously become social development and economic property victim. In this way, how to protect people’s property and personal safety and avoid suffering from others’the infringing act hurt, it is a significant legal problem in21century.The case is about personal tort compensation disputes, the first-instance court, making a decision that the defendant has the obligations to compensate the plaintiff. But the second-instance court thinks the plaintiff of full act capacity has the ability to foresee the possibility of danger when walking in the obstacles of the road. The defendant defenses that the place the plaintiff falling doesn’t belong to place of business and brings to the plaintiff’s falling is other company employee’s dropped food. So the other company has the obligations to compensate the plaintiff. In fact, the case refers to the security obligations. The author thinks security obligations of the operators is legal liability, so we can use the way of fault liability principle and presumption of fault. In the structure of the tort liability, judging the fault of the operator, we must compare the operator’s behavior with similar operators’standard based on the law, in order to ensure the operator do "the reasonable scope of the duty of care" and decided wrong or not. For the operator against the security obligations of illegal behavior are the cause of the damage, we don’t think about the reason leading to the results.