The Iiability For Self Supermarket Package Of Damages Study

In the "Li Xingying v Shanghai RT-Mart supermarket damages" case, the Court of the nature of the plaintiff's acts of self- storage identified as non-reimbursable loans, and accordingly finds supermarket operators have done to contractual obligations, thus finds that supermarket operators without incurring liability for damages, without the support of the plaintiff's claim. According to the court judgment only for the non-reimbursable loan contractual relationship, and not from the perspective of tort law to consider the issue. From the angle of the Tort Law of view, that despite supermarket operators do not need to assume contractual obligations, but still need to undertake security duties in violation of tort liability.The first part, the case profile. Brief introduction Li Xingying v RT-Mart case damages occur through, the trial results.The second part analyzes the court case surrounding the verdict of the court referee gist of the dispute were the focus of the comb. The focus of controversy court case summarized as follows: a supermarket self-storage properties belonging to the custody contract or unpaid loan contract? Second, there is no supermarket operators into the necessary duty of care?The third part, summed up the focus of controversy specific analysis. First, the nature of the contract explicitly custody, after a demonstration analysis results- Supermarket Self Storage behavior should belong to the non-reimbursable loan contract; further analysis from the perspective of tort law, without incurring contractual obligations despite supermarket operators based on borrowing contract, but still assume security obligations; and commitment to the supermarket operators reasonable and necessary security safeguards obligations of analysis and appraisal; Finally supermarket operators should bear the responsibility principle and to assume responsibility for the way the analysis: China's relevant laws are the "fault responsibility " to bear as operators of the principle of liability, scholars have suggested that it is defined as the presumption of fault liability. Because fault liability distortion of the nature of the infringement, and not as an excessive focus on the protection of the interests of operators, it will be a strict liability security obligations imputation trends. Make that claim is based on the theory of profit reward risk control theory, the total cost savings of social theory and other theories, but also learn from foreign and domestic jurisprudence of judicial experience. Security breach of obligations defined as not infringing acts can not be applied as a standard infringement but should appear to reverse the consequences of infringement of the presumption standards. Namely the exclusion of force majeure or fault of the consumer's own premise, once consumers have suffered damage in the premises, it means that the operator did not do to the security obligations, should bear tort liability. Liability in accordance with the principles of our existing economic level, the implementation of strict liability of the operator may be prompted operators to strictly technology, management regulations, will help to establish a more stable and orderly environment for consumers.The fourth part concludes. That is the case in the supermarket operators should bear the behavior of self-help package of security obligations, breach of the obligation to assume direct infringement liability rather than supplementary liability, strict liability and the liabilities will be the trend.