The Study On The Supplementary Responsibility Of Security Obligator

Discussions about what kind of responsibility the security obligations shall bear under the third party intervention scenarios started at the beginning of this century that began to explore the "operator security responsibility and the responsibility of competing directly against the third person" in the field of a series of cases, in the course of the discussion in the above cases, viewpoints about supplementary liability gradually gained an advantage, and eventually adopted by the judicial and legislative. We found that, for whether the field of security and security obligations are applicable for supplementary liability rules, international practice and our practice are in stark opposition:Two Schools generally exclude supplementary liability rules while our country in this field to promote the supplement responsibility applies. Domestic theorists supplementary liability related to positive or negative argument echoes with such opposition, the focus of the conflict are also concentrated in the same area. Experience from trial practice and comparative law also indicate that in the field of security obligations, when the third party intervention infringement occurred, to the security obligations shall be applicable supplementary liability exists many problems. Based on the theory of security obligations, this paper will analysis supplementary liability flaws and talks about personal ideas about how to improve the third person involved in case security guarantee obligation bear tort liability. The article wills discussion in four chapters:Chapter One:This paper introduces the main dispute that tort liability system circle of supplementary obligations breach of security exists, then it disscusses the nature and the content of security obligations and the additional responsibility for the definition and characteristics of the basic theory of law.Chapter Two:By comparing and analyzing civil law countries and common law provisions of the relevant national legislation and judicial practice in violation of Security Obligation of tort liability, we find:in the case of a third person involved in the infringement leads to the victim of the damage occurred, civil law countries usually provide security obligations and the person directly responsible shall bear joint and several liability or not real joint and several liability for losses that the victim suffered; the judicial precedents of common law countries show direct infringement liability obligations as a man and not entirely borne by those responsible may be jointly and severally liable, it could be the sole responsibility, it also may be some combination of liability form. Two Legal does not exist supplementary liability rules apply in this area.Chapter three:through our " Judicial Interpretation of Personal Injury Compensation " and "Tort Liability Act" in security obligations complement the legislative status liability regime interpretation, under clear specific applicable rules to the premise, points out problems that exists in China’s current security obligations complementary liability system, in particular, the specific circumstances of no infringement of third party intervention for type of distinction is the root cause of many disputes and problems supplementary liability regime in theory and in practice produce lies.Chapter four:Based on the analysis of supplementary liability system of defects and problems,put forward to specific methods of reconstruction and improvement of security obligations supplementary liability regime, specific circumstances that works in the field of security obligations infringing third party intervention for type analysis, in the case of infringement of third party intervention, establish the violations of safety and security obligations, including joint,according to copies and not truly joint account diversification responsibility system.