A Study On The Civil Responsibilities About Breach Of Security Obligations

With the rapid development of socio-economic, public security risks occur more and more frequently. In this case, the security obligations came into being. It reflects both the expansion and the human care of Tort Law.Security obligations are those in certain relationships, or in certain places, security obligators take some security measures, to protect personal safety and property security of people, in accordance with the legal provisions. If security obligators don’t do that, they should be responsible for the damage to the personal safety and property security. Security obligations are kinds of statutory obligations, not contractual obligations, but in some cases security obligations and contractual obligations may be competing.It is obvious that Tort Law abandon the old rules about security obligators, throughout related legislation in China. Whether the parties bare security obligation or not, it is decided by the following factors:the law, the existence of a special relationship between the parties, who open or continue the dangerous, people’s reasonable expectance, the possibility of risks’control, the cost of risks’control and the possibility of self-protection of victims. Security obligators can be divided into four different kinds:places’managers, event organizers, who engaged in professional activities, obligators based on the close relationships.When there is a third party involved into the case, and he makes damage directly, the causal relationship between security obligators and the damage still exists. When the security obligators directed the result of damage, they assume direct responsibility. If there is a third party involved in the case, security obligators assumed supplement responsibility. About security obligations’way of accusation, this paper presents a theoretical that drew the United States’implicated relationship into necessary joint action. When a third party involved into security obligations, this is a new case of necessary joint action. The third party and the security obligators are joint defendants, if prosecutor only sue one of them, the court should add the other one as joint defendants, except that the third party can’t be defined or can’t be found. If prosecutor does not agree, the court should tell the prosecutor that he or she can’t sue the other one again next time. The court should explicitly assume full liability for the third party, only when the third party can’t afford all compensation, security obligators assume supplemental responsibility according to their mistake size. After that, they can ask the third party to recover. When executed, the court should first execute the third party’s property.