On The Liablity Of The Carrier Infringe Security Obligations Who Is One Of The Passenger Transportation Contract’s Party

The rapid development of modern society promote the scope of communication lagerand lager between people,and wide range of transactions between the parties to the contractare also increasingly affected by external factors. Reflected in the passenger transportationcontract, one of the performance can not be ignored is the safety of passengers that threatenedfrom all sides,so the law imposed a heavy duty on carrier to protect the personal safety oftravelers. The obligations of the carrier to ensure passengers’safety during transport are in thenature of security obligations.It is established in The Tort Liability Act as exotic in ourcountry, with rationality and innovation, adapted to the needs of the new situation emerging insocial reality. However, with the mutual penetration between the branches of law, theboundaries between the various law departments is no longer so obvious, the same withsecurity obligations are not limited to the field of infringement, but to show the areas ofcontract, such as the expansion of the area of consumer trends. To ensure passengerssafety,the carrier has the burden of security obligations is the best example of this trend.Moreover, I found that among the dispute because of damage caused personal travelers injudicial practice,the most controversial case is the co opetition of the third person’s positiveharm occurred with omission of the carrier.Triggering the root cause of this controversy isthat carrier to fulfill security obligations or not. Given that about this issue,not onlyjudicial practice,but also theoretical world,has space to discuss, the author from theperspective of the third person who causes the passenger’s personal injury, discussing theliability of carrier who infringes the obligation of safety guarantee. This article will beintroduced the following four parts:The first part is "investigation of the responsibility assuming by the carrier who breakssecurity obligations in the judicial practice ".First selected some representative cases,drawinga table from the performance of carrier’ act of omission, whether competing, passengerclaims’ basement, the judgment is based, in the final recourse liability principle, the scope ofcompensation as well as the carrier’s seven aspects,reflecting our judicial practice of theresponsibility assuming by the carrier who breaks security obligations,with the third personmakes passengers personal injuries. Secondly, through analysing the table,summarize thecontroversy and problems that exist in our judicial practice.The second part is "the legal nature of carrier security obligations ".By analysing the criteria for the classification of security obligations, the ultimate point to discuss in this article-the liability of the carrier’s commitment to the center, combined with our legal obligations tothe carrier security provisions of the security division of the carrier’s obligations from thenature of security obligations and legal security obligations agreed upon. The latter furthersubdivided into areas of security obligations in the field of contract law and tort law.The third part is "Responsibility of carrier breaking security obligations".Based on thefirst part,summarizes the reasons for the existence of the dispute lies in the different judicialpractice court finds the carrier security obligations.Combined with the second part of theanalysis of security obligations’ legal nature,discussing the liability of the carrier whoinfringe the agreed obligation of security,or the contractual security obligations which arestipulate in law,or those except contractual security obligations,to inform a system.The fourth part is "the legal structure of responsibility assuming by the carrier who breacho security obligations ".Point at controversies in judicial practice, based on the analysis of thethird part of the above, give some suggestions from the obligation to form a clear definition ofresponsibilities and reasonable both, with a view to seeking judicial practice better systemdesign.