On The Security Obligations The Perspective Of 《Tort Liability Act》 Article 37

Industrial civilization life has brought great convenience for human, promoted the communication of people and consumption, public places of entertainment, consumption, Banks and others are created. However, modern society is full of risk, all kinds of unsafe factors lurking in the crowded public places, which easily do harm to the personal property safety. In recent years, there have happened so many cases in violation of the security obligation in the public service industry and mass activities. Many parties maintain the legitimate rights and interests through the security obligation system which highlights variability and promptness of People’s Republic of China Tort Liability Act. Security obligation system, provides the legal basis for the judicial practice workers in such cases, and provides a direction for the legal theory workers.It is not a long time that tort act is put into practice, however, there exist a paradox that the same case may get a different result which means that security obligation system may be unreasonable. This paper mainly expound from the following several aspects:first, the definition of public places. The tort liability law article 37 specifically lists five kinds of places as follow:the hotel, bank, the malls, railway stations, entertaining places, but public places is an open concept, the judge can explain its expansion in the judicial judgment or analogy explanation if premise is reasoning and explanation is legal. At the same time, from the Angle of system special infringement involving legal types of public places should be ruled out in the article 37 of the tort liability act regulations in public places. Second, the main body of security. Public places should not be limited to that places open to the public. Manager of public include direct and indirect manager, organizers and implementer. Organizers Of mass activities, we should consider several factors as follows: whether the organizer have specific activity plan, whether has direct jurisdiction on the relevant people’s behavior, examine whether rights and obligations is equal. Third, Constitutive requirement.The reasonable limit of obligation of security guarantee should be determined with the standard of law and the kindhearted administrator, and specific cases should be specifically analyzed. Focus on site management and profitability, professional level, ability of prevention and control of risk other factors. The reasonable limit of the obligation helps judge whether the security obligation has a fault. Both reference evidence and objectified and representation helps to lighten the burden of proof holder. Fourth, in violation of the security obligation infringement responsibility. Violating the security obligation responsibility public place manager or organizer of mass activities should bear responsibility. Multiple responsibility system under the third person involved in tort, can solve the problem in violation of the rights guarantee obligatory responsibility identification from three aspects:the morphology of the fault, the behavior and causality. At the same time, if the supplement responsibility scope could be narrowed and the scope of the order and the subjects of compensation is determined, the right will have the biggest holder of relief.