Study On Civil Liability For Damage Caused By Falling Objects From Building

Along with our country urbanization advancement achieving rapid development, a lot of high-rise buildings are built. It also bring a thorny problem: when the damage caused by falling objects from building occurs, and who is the specific tortfeasor is difficult to find, how could the victim get relief? Before the article 87 of Tort Liability Law of People’s Republic of China was made to solve this problem, our country court had no uniform treatment method, such as Ji’nan "board" case dealt according to the common dangerous behavior, and some dealt on the basis of the principle of presumption of fault processing such as "Chongqing ashtray" case, etc. Based on the same case, the courts made different decisions, seriously affecting the fairness and authority of justice. The article 87 of Tort Liability Law of People’s Republic of China fills the legal gap on this issue and provides a clear legal basis: the users of the building who are most likely to throwing things shall make compensation unless he can prove he is not the infringer. The article 87 of the law provides a uniform basis for court trial over different codefendant phenomenon. It brings the certain progress. However, the legitimacy of the compensation liability of the article 87 of the law are questioned by many scholars, and the related content of the article 87 are not specific enough,exposing many questions in practice. This paper will discuss the legitimacy of the compensation liability of the article 87 of the law, and proposes the countermeasure to the relevant problems in judicial application, in order to provide some reference for the theory and the practice.This paper is divided into three parts:The first chapter is divided into five sections. The first section is about the definition of civil liability for damage caused by falling objects from buildings. In this part, I use the concept of "falling objects" to discuss, indicating that the "falling objects" are limited to the falling objects from buildings. After the comparison with common dangerous behavior and the building liability in tort law, I make it clear the differences between them, and correct the confusing perspective on these issues. The second section mainly lists the courts’ different processing method before the article 87 of the law came out, and combined with related typical cases to explain it. Then the third section briefly introduce the academic circles’ different views on this problem, at the same time, the part will introduce this issue in the perspective of comparative law. The fourth section mainly introduce the legislative process of the article 87 of the law. The fifth section is to show the use of the article 87 of the law in practice case, the part summarize the specific problems exposed in the judicial practice. Through combing out about the problem, the paper would get a comprehensive understanding of it, and illustrate the significance and necessity of the analysis and discussion of the provisions of this question.The second chapter is on the analysis of the legitimacy of the compensation liability of the article 87 of the law. In this part, I discuss based on three angles, first of all, from the point of the liability principle in tort law, the article 87 of the law is found that it is not suitable to any liability principle in tort law; secondly, from the point of own responsibility principle of the traditional tort law, I draw the conclusion that the article 87 of the law that make the people who may throw objects from the buildings undertake the responsible for compensation is unfair, impairing the impartiality of the law; after that, combined with cases I draw the conclusion that it is difficult to put into effect in practice that make the innocent to prove themselves irrelevant, and the rule cannot make up for the injustice to the innocent people. Through the above three aspects, finally I come to the conclusion the compensation liability prescribed in the article 87 of the law violate the impartiality of the law.The third chapter is to put forward suggestions for perfecting the article 87 of Tort Liability Law of People’s Republic of China. According to the problems summed up from the cases in the first chapter, I put forward that we could make the judicial explanation for the related details, in order to make it clear to apply. Based on the conclusions that the compensation liability is against the legitimacy of the law drawn in the second chapter, firstly, the feasibility of the liability insurance system is discussed to draw negative conclusions, secondly I put forward that we should strengthen the theoretical study of the social security system, trying to establish a perfect social security system. When the accidents happens, the victims could get relief from the state in order to reduce the negative impact of in the article 87 of the law.The article finally draws the conclusion: due to the inherent drawbacks of the article 87 of the law still exists, the discussion of the issue in theory circle will be continued. Through the comparison with common dangerous behavior and building liability, I draw the conclusion that the issue is not affiliated with both. Through making a analysis from three angles of the liability principle in tort law, own responsibility principle and the burden of proof upside down, I draw the conclusion that the compensation liability set in the article 87 of the law violate the impartiality of the law; to solve the problems of the article 87 of the law exposed in the application, I put forward that we had better enact the related judicial interpretation.Finally, based on the above analysis, in order to perfect the article 87 of the law, I put forward we should strengthen the theoretical research on the social security system, take feasible measures to improve the social security system, and then try to establish such a way :when the passers-by suffer from the damage caused by falling objects from building and cannot find the certain injuring person, they could get relief from the state.