Research On The Object-Injury Liability Of China

In the recently, high frequency of varied object-injury accidents havedramatically drawn public’s attention. Those object-injury accidents mayinclude the collapse of construction, bridge, public transportation, andunderground facility.This dissertation will begin with the origin of object-injury liability.Developed in Rome age,“Quasi Delictum” seems to be the firstobject-injury liability rules. This Rules contains the concept that personliable should take the responsibility for those injury accidents caused by theobject which is under control by responsible person. During that time, theconcept of object-injury liability is budding. Afterwards, French Civil Codeand German Civil Code all pushed forward this concept in radical and conservative attitude. French Civil Code has established the general clausefor object-injury accidents. With the real practice by administration ofjustice, they has adjusted and extended the range of object-injury liability.Furthermore, they classified the responsibility through liability withoutnegligence. Different with the extensive use of object-injury liability inFrench Civil Law, German Civil Law has established their object-injuryliability with even more detailed specification and classified theresponsibility based on intrusion. Japan Civil Law, as another object ofstudy within the continental law system, stipulated the working object setupon the ground, liability caused by management defects. They are moretending to agree the concept of liability without negligence. Correspondingwith the Continental Law System, Anglo-American Law System does nothave separate regulation on object-injury accidents, but they settle theobject-injury liability in the conventional sense through stipulating the landoccupier liability, and set up the liability in varied rigidly level in terms ofwhether injured party was involved or not.The object-injury liability was first established in General Principles of theCivil Law, and then was comprehensively and systematically stipulated inTort Liability Law. Seven kinds of object-injury liability were establishedherein. Although no general principle was set for object-injury liability,2 kinds of liability are established instead, which are a), the person liableshall take responsibility for the damage arisen out of the object underhis/her own control which is due to its intrinsic risk, and b) the personliable shall take responsibility for the damage arisen out of the object underhis/her own control which is due to improper disposal. As one of thespecial kind in the torts, it differs greatly from other torts on the damagemode, i.e. injuring pattern, proving of cause-and-effect relationships,principle of responsibility attribution. This dissertation demonstrates andrecognizes the injuring pattern through comparing of different type ofobject-injury, for example, a), the difference between drop/fall off of theconstruction facilities and the collapse of the construction facilities fromthe buildings, b), the difference between liability for set up obstacles on thepublic road and stacking objects liability, c), the difference between thedamages caused by on-the-ground objects and under-the-ground objects.Generally, it is presumptive fault which applies to the object-injury liability,but sometimes, no-fault liability and equitable liability may also apply.Regarding the configuration of the object-injury liability, the person liableshall take the direct responsibility to the object owned by or controlled byhe/she himself/herself. Except for the solitary liability for stacking objects,there are some joint and several liabilities in the section of object-injury liability, e.g. the joint and several liabilities between the constructor and theconstruction owner, the non-essential joint and several liability amongowner, custodian and user, proportionate liability among the possibleinjurers, and supplemental liability for the custodian in the obstacles settingliability on the public road, etc.According to the demonstration above, the author brought forward her ownopinion and scenarios. First of all, the name of the section covers a widerange, and cannot really reflect the different sorts of liability stated in thissection, instead, the traditional “liability for construction object” or“liability for construction and other object under control” are more clearand distinct. Secondly, there are quite some kinds of object-injury liabilitiesstipulated in this section, but still no general principle established, whichseems a little bit inflexible and will fall behind the development of the ageand the possible new types of object-injury liability. Thirdly, the structureof the section of object-injury liability is lack of logicality. The rules are notaiming at the same kind of liability within this section, instead, theregulations are aiming at all kinds of liability which obviously falls out ofthis section. The regulations tried to make every deeds under clearprovision, but it turns out to be wrong. For example, object-injury is a kindof liability related object or caused by object, but the liability related to conduct is also stipulated in this section. Finally, liability caused bythrowing or falling objects as the controversial focus is once againquestioned by the author. As a kind of liability related to conduct is notappropriate to fall in this section, and then the presumption of thecause-and-effect relationships is also a serious concern, what’s more, totransfer part of the liability to the innocent property owners is really notacceptable. Hence, the author request to set up liability insurance andowners fund to make up the losses.