The Operator Of The Security Obligation In Such A Personal Injury Compensation For Perspective

With the accelerating process of economic and social development in our country, about thepersonal and property damage compensation cases also showed a trend of increasinglydiversified and complicated, always appear in public in society in recent years, accommodation,catering, entertainment and so on within the premises. Otherwise, for this country in2003thesupreme people’s court about the trial of cases on compensation for personal injury to explainsome issues of applicable law, the tort liability act2010made rules for operator’s securityobligations, but the law the obligation of security guarantee scattered to operator cannoteffectively guiding the judicial practice.The author ren so-and-so v. HuaTang store personal damages, analysis operator safetyguarantee obligations, the operator is the fault of the evaluation standard, the infringer isunknown when the operator is responsible for three questions, through to the operator andsecurity obligations, two concepts of resolution summed up the operators the concept of securityobligations, analysis operator is responsible for the security obligation, in this part the author tooperator the rationality of the obligation of security from the perspective of economics and socialAngle were analyzed respectively, the operator shall bear the security guarantee obligations.Then the author fault to operator evaluation standard legal problems are analyzed. Unified operator is the fault of the evaluation standards to protect the lawful rights and interests ofoperators and the other party has a positive effect, the author combined with the "tort liabilitylaw" and relevant judicial explanation and industry regulations, standards, and summed up theoperator objective evaluation criteria of fault, and combining with the operator’s area, scale andoperator safety guarantee obligation to the other party of the different types of operators faultinfluence evaluation standard, according to the tort liability law and the provisions of relevantlaws and regulations on the safety guarantee obligation, the authors think that the operator shallbe liable fault, fault should be proof by damaged harm to operator. Next, the author not clearwhen the operator’s liability for the infringer is analyzed. Concrete infringing the third personmade specific provision, the author believes that as long as there are in addition to operators ofthird party damage to the operator safety guarantee obligation to the other party, we might saythat there is a third person, operators added responsibility at this time. In addition the author v.and did the theory to the supplement responsibility. Hope this article in this case the combinationof theory and practice analysis, play a constructive role to such dispute.