Supplementary Responsibility Of Safety-guard Duty

In Tort Law of China, regulations of security obligations supplementary liability are mainly gathered in Article 6 of the Interpretation of Personal Injury Compensation and Article 37 of the Tort Liability Law. Simple descriptions of the legal provisions make more difficulties in theoretical studies and juridical practice, for example, the legal professions hold different ideas about supplementary liability of tort liability. The unclear definitions of behavioral nature for both third person and safety guarantee obligator caused mixed uses of the relevant clauses. The existence and application of the right of recourse are not so clear. Based on the existing legal and judicial interpretation, the author analyses the arguments of the third people behavior intervention in supplementary liability and puts forward the corresponding ideas by using the method of comparative research, case analysis, and etc. This paper can be divided into four parts.The first part illustrates with three cases, leading into the related problems in the subject by citing cases of third person behavior. The author points out that the insufficient of the legal regulations application, comparison among various cases and related discussion will also be involved,initiates the related discussion.The forms of third person behavior will be discussed in the second part, which aiming at analyzing the differences between each liability. Through the comparison of comparative law, the third person behavior as the unique achievement in Tort Law of China will be regarded. By comparing the domestic academicians’ point of view, the author will focus on the relations and differences between supplementary compensation liability and unreal joint liability. In the process of comparison, The author finally presents the differences between supplementary compensation liability and unreal joint liability is just the expenses by imitating cases from the angle of legal effect. It is meaningless to violently controvert the differences between supplementary compensation liability and unreal joint liability. According to the above conclusion, the author analyses the value of the system of the third person behavior revolves the rationality of this system as an independent existing form of tort liabilityThe third part is the vital part of this article. It will be divided into the components of the supplementary liability tort, including damage fact, causality ground, imputation principle and relief the five aspects for detailed analysis. By analyzing the infringement and damage facts, based on the tort liability law act according to share liability, joint liability and supplement liability in the comparison of the related law, put forward the second paragraph of Article 37 of the tort liability law act applicable to the specific situation shall be for the security obligation of indirect infringement and the third person intentional tort caused by the combination of the results. And in-depth analysis form causal relationship, imputation principle and liability for three aspects on the application of the supplementary liability.The forth part is also the vital part of this article, trying to find out the supplementary liability results of people to assume security obligations, whether the people who bears security obligations have the right to recoveries, and further discussion about the production and nature of the recourse. After all of above, the author proposes research to clarify the obligations of security and direct infringement of third party assume all liability, which will take the damages of external relations and internal relations recourse as a breakthrough. The debate on the substance of the right of recourse against third people and security obligations on how to allocate responsibility for tort damages will be reached into a conclusion. The direct reason for recourse is the responsibility for external relations, while the third party and add responsibility party assume full responsibility for how the final distribution is the fundamental reason. During the analyzes process of the recourses, within the scope of the number of security obligations people who involved in the infringement caused the same damage, when the third party and external security obligations jointly and severally liable, both in internal relations may bear responsibility for their own share of the final allocation of responsibilities carried out, the conclusions are: when the the third party and people who bear security obligations of joint and several liability, the two parties can share the final responsibility according to their own proportions, if the people who bear security obligations share the proportion beyond their own liability, they have the recourse; when the third party and people who bear security obligations supplementary liability, the two parties share the same proportion as the external one, the people who bear the security obligations will not have the recourse anymore; when the third party and people who bear security obligations supplementary liability, the differences between the intentional and negligent act are the distinctions of type rather than the extent, it is unfair to compare the two parties, which leading to a conclusion of, the third person intentionally will take the full responsibility, the people who bear security obligations will have the recourse after bearing the external supplementary liability.