Liability In Tort Of Violating The Security Obligation

Everyday people work conscientiously, for trying to get a decent life with dignityand a safe and orderly environment. As the Roman jurists say:"honestly living, notharming others, each in his own place." But the reality is that each person in the lifeall the time is not accompanied by risk or risk is not in danger is lurking around. Theword "security" is the existence of people’s minds the most sensitive of this age.Because the prevention of risk by yourself is not enough to maintain security, so in2003Article6of Interpretations on the issues of Laws Applicable to Cases ofCompensation for Personal Injury by the Supreme People’s Court Confirmed that thesecurity obligation of the relevant subject. After six years, in2009Article37of theTort Law of the People’s Republic of China admitted this obligation in tort law levelfor the first time, and made corresponding changes to the judicial explanation.Because of that, there is room for analyzing Article37.This paper is divided into four parts:The first part is about the analysis of the cases of infringement of omission. Thischapter lists the seven nonfeasance tort cases. Then these cases of infringement leadto safeguards obligations, and pointed out that the obligation in the legal aspects ofthe change.The second part is about imputation principle of infringement cases in violationof the security obligation. This chapter, from the relationship between the security obligation and fault imputation principle, no-fault imputation principle, expoundedthe limitation of the two imputation principles. It pointed out the rationality ofapplying to the principle of presumption of fault in infringement cases of violating thesecurity obligations. This principle is designed to make the tort law protecting theinterests of the disadvantaged, maintaining individual freedom, and even make theorderly development of the social economy.The third part is about the contents of the security obligations and limits. Thischapter expounds the security obligations, obligors and objects of protection, injury. Itpointed out that the essence of the security obligations is burdening a duty of care forthe interests of others. And when judging the obligations, we follow the principle ofpredictable, the principle of case analysis, close neighbor principle. In determiningobligors, we should master the standard whether the obligor opens the traffic. Theidentification of objects of protection can draw lessons from German law on thetheory of whether the victim can expected protected and whether the defendant canforesee the plaintiff in the common law. The identification of the damages is also isalso affected by the two standards, which are compromised with the causation anddamages should be predictable.The fourth part is about the liability of violating of the security obligation. Awhether there is intervention of the third person’s behavior, this paper expounds thetwo types of violation of security obligation of tort liability, especially the analysis ofinfringement cases intervening the third person’s conduct. And according to thedifferent cause force between the third person’s conduct and injury, the cases will beclassified. Then the judge will determine the liability in accordance with the specificcase types. When the obligor’s omission and the third person’s conduct are enough tocause damages, the obligation is unreal joint-liability. In the third person to commit acrime case, the victim can ask for compensation for mental damage if the obligorviolates the security obligation.