The Study Of Liability For Damages Caused By Objects Falling Off

The paper is mainly about the liability of article 85 which is set in the Tort Law of the PRC. The range and harming forms of object, the application of fault presumption, the subject of liability, and so many other problems are not so clear because of legislative defects. While all these problems coalesce that torments judges in practice. The paper, which bases on the essence of the system and problems that were reflected in practice, reveals doctrines of this system and clears confusions. Some advices will be given in the end of the paper when comparative-law analysis and theoretical analysis were given. Besides introduction and the closing word, the paper will be divided into three parts:The first part is the Legislation of Liability for Damages Caused by Objects Falling Off. In this part, the paper will describe typical legislations about the system in the Continental Law System. In the meanwhile, differences among those typical legislations will be pointed. out and developing process of the system will be cleared under the perspective of comparative-law method. Then the paper will summarize the inner mechanism and refine the legal value of this system. Some detailed descriptions about the development and legislation of Liability for Damages Caused by Objects Falling Off in China is following. In the end of this part, major problems about article 85, which are reflected in practice and legislation, will be given.The second part is the Constitution of Liability for Damages Caused by Objects Falling Off. The study in this part bases on problems which were reflected in practice and discussions from theorists. Here the paper mainly discusses the concept and the legislation of "object", the necessity of extensive interpretation for harming forms, and the introspection to fault presumption in practice. In this paper, the range of object should not be limited to what was described in article 85. It's very important to amplify it on the value of legal. Because of rigidity, it's better to set an upper-seat concept so as to replace the current regulation. For harming forms, it's also necessary to be expanded according to facts because of legislation rigidity. While discussions about fault presumption in this paper are entirely due to the author's denial about current practices. According to most judgments, defendant was required to prove that certain situation in Chapter 3(in the Tort Law of the PRC) was existing. Otherwise, no matter how he spared no effort proving he had done well in managing the object, he would be judged for liable. But in this paper, the way the defendant to prove his no fault is lying to prove he had done appropriately for managing the object. And the standard of proof depends on facts instead of Chapter 3.The third part is the Responsibility of Liability for Damages Caused by Objects Falling Off. After detailed discussion about the liability constitution, this part, which bases on the practice, will analyze the responsibility in detail. Here the paper holds the opinion that the connotation of "supervisor" is different from the popular view. The concept, "supervisor", should be returned to the legislative intention and narrow sense interpretation rather than being expanded. And as for "user", it should be noticed that there is no difference in article 85 between rightful occupation and unauthorized occupation. What's more, the obligation should be matched with the user's control and how much he can get from the object. Furthermore, when the owner, the supervisor and the user are coexisting, the type of responsibility style is inappropriate to adopt joint liability, individual liability or unreal joint liability. As fault presumption is a special type of fault liability, so "fault" is still the essence. In the case of this, as for liability subjects coexisting, it's quite vital to distinguish the degree of faults among subjects. Then the fault degree is the base of liability. So the type of responsibility style here is the shared liability. Meanwhile, if a certain infringement is available between the victim and the "other responsible subjects", the victim is rightful to claim. The basis of claim lies on the type of the infringement, which is not limited to article 85.Finally, the closing word will review main opinions of the paper. Furthermore, some detailed advices will be given.