On The Supplementary Liability In Tort Law Of China

In the theoretical system of traditional tort law,the majority of the tort liability sharing method is divided into shared liability and joint liability?However,The traditional theory of joint liability and shared responsibility is obviously inadequate to solve some new types of tort cases for the modern society?The supplementary tort liability makes up for the deficiency of joint liability and shared liability in dealing with the tort of the majority andmakes the majority tort cases in the practice more easily,more able to adapt to the needs of complex social reality?As a form of tort liability sharing with strong Chinese characteristics,the rationality of thesupplementary tort liability has been controversial in China,the application of judicial practice also faces many difficulties?Therefore,this article takes the basic category of the supplementary tort liability as the starting point,probe into the reasonable controversy and practical predicament of the supplementary tort liability,and try to study and discuss the rationality of the supplementary tort liability,the solution of the practical predicament and the realization of the procedure.This article is divided into five parts besides the introduction:The first part mainly explains the basic category of the supplementary tort liability?Although the supplementary tort liability is a kind of the majority tort liability sharing pattern in our country,its connotation is still unclear?Therefore,it is necessary to clarify the connotation of the supplementary tort liability.After defining the connotation of the supplementary tort liability,researching the other majority tort liability sharing pattern,it can be found that the relative independence,the attribute,the unknown of the supplementary tort liability and it is different from the joint liability,the shared liability and unreal joint liability.The second part is mainly to explore the rationality and practical difficulties of the supplementary tort liability ? In the theoretical circle,the rationality of the supplementary tort liability has been questioned by some scholars on the grounds of violating the principle of fairness,the principle of self responsibility,the principle of compensation for all damages,and requirements for security obligation?Therefore,it is necessary to sort out the existing voice of the legitimacy of the tort liability,to pave the way for proving its rationality.In the judicial practice on the supplementary tort liability in the judgment,that the phenomenon of different codefendants indicates the supplementary tort liability is falling into the predicament of lack of clear standard.Itis mainly reflected in the court of the priority rules,compensation scope definition and understanding of the right of recourse only stay in a level.The third part is mainly to prove the rationality of the supplementary tort liability.For the second part of the domestic theoretical circles from multiple perspectives on the question of the rationality of tort liability of tort,this part starts with the question of the theoretical circle,respond to these questions and one by one for proving the rationality of supplementary tort liability.The fourth part is mainly to solve the practical difficulties of the supplementary tort liability.According to the dilemma of the supplementary tort liability in judicial practice,this part deeply research priority rules,compensation scope and right of recourse,and get three exceptions to the requirements for the priority rules of the supplementary tort liability.The liability of the supplementary liability shall be considered in the consideration of its predictability and control ability.Supplementary liability person can recourse to the direct liability person.The fifth part mainly discusses the realization of the litigation and enforcement procedure of the supplementary tort liability.If you want to truly achieve the victim's personal and property back to the state before the damage,it must rely on a sound litigation and enforcement procedures.Under the action of the necessary joint action,there are three litigation paths for victims to choose.After entering the implementation phase,the court must strictly abide by the principle of executive order and exhaustive implementation and guarantee of the responsibility of the right to dissent.