Not As Tort Liability Research

With the continuous development of social life, not as an infringement cases continue tooccur, but not whether the tort should be included as tort law scholars disagree on this point ofview. Country in2009when the introduction of the Tort Liability Act, the laws in somespecific special Omission made specific provisions, however,Throughout the legalheadquarters, but there have been throughout the general terms of the act, leading to the typeof behavior, responsibilities and commitments, such as the identification of many problemsstill exist in a lot of confusion, and the existing provisions due to the limitation on the scopeof the order As to not make the judicial practice of infringement cases are not as well resolved.Therefore, it is imperative that the provisions of the General Terms and Conditions are not astort liability in the legislation, then the basis of general terms, with no specific provisionsrelating to obligations as a tort liability, should not bear the responsibility not as an obligationand commitment to what people Liability Form and other issues, only these problems aresolved, in order for the judicial practice of legislative better guidance. Tort liability and not ascoexistence as tort liability, although in terms of that standard, and not as a liability and othertort liability are very different, but it contains a wealth of theories, such as Elements theory,causality recognized standards. We do not want to build a better system of tort liability as onlegislation, as were learning theories of tort liability is a must.On the structural arrangements, the paper is divided into four chapters, the first chapterintroduces the omission of tort liability on the basis of knowledge. First, different scholarswith different perspectives as a starting point, not as the concept of tort liability are classifiedand described, then these concepts through analysis to identify at which the deficiencies, andthen make their own are not recognized as a liability in tort concept. Through the concept oftort liability for omission of statements known as the existence of the obligation is not anecessary prerequisite for the existence of tort liability. Given the need for the existence of aduty, then you need to classify the obligation, therefore, different standards division, actorsassume obligations as it is different. Secondly, the establishment of any theory, we need tosupport a large number of theories, therefore, not as tort liability on the theory there is noexception in the case. But in the end what the doctrine is not as capable as the theoretical basis for tort liability, for selecting the author of some representative theories, elaborateanalysis, and then find out the suitable for China not as theories of tort liability. Again, weshall not set up as a tort liability, the need to form the basis of the elements, that is not in linewith the constitutional elements as tort liability. Through the different constituent elementswere analyzed doctrine, I think,"said the three elements" as the most appropriate constituentelements.The second chapter of the two legal systems of different countries are not as provisionson tort liability. French civil law countries by case, will not be included as an infringement ofthe French Civil Code, and to adopt a rational person’s fault that standard; German influencein the country is not as guilty under the theory, developed by the jurisprudence of the generalsafety duty of care to whether a violation of the obligation to identify whether the perpetratorshould bear tort liability on the basis of omission; Japan also identified through case raised nosafety concern as whether tort liability obligations established, and with France, Germany isdifferent, but also do not elements of tort liability as described. Common law countries arguedthat the duty of care is the key to identify the perpetrator’s behavior is not as if tort liability.The third chapter from the legislative point of view, the status quo, it is undeniable thatsome of the laws and regulations in regard to omission of tort liability provisions, whichaddressed only in the field is not as special tort liability, however, for general terms of thekind of responsibility, as a limited obligation of the sources of problems are not involved.Secondly, in the typical case of judicial practice to illustrate the status quo of China’s judiciaryis not as tort liability and co-existence of different sentence, the judge issues such as abuse ofdiscretion.The fourth chapter of the specific content is perfect for the problems of the previouschapter. First, in the legislation, I believe that China should adopt a "general plus specific,"the legislative model, will not be incorporated into a tort law system in general is in generalterms stipulated in the law is not as tort liability; secondly, the specific Which is about theobligations set forth as an obligation from, whether between bears and people specialrelationship expert or obligations are taken into account as; again, through the analysis of theDepartment of French law on the causal relationship between the two standards recognized that considerable because it should be said that the relationship is not as recognized asthe standard tort causation, but after all the cases with the presence of different cases, so whenwe found not one size fits all approach to take; and finally, from the perspective of their ownfault and not as a third person involved in the infringement departure, finds what shape thebehavior of tort liability should bear in these cases. These sound advice, not only can reducethe co-occurrence of different contractors judicial practice, but also help build omission tortliability system.