The Supplementary Responsibility Of Security Obligors

The 37th article of "The Tort Law" prescribes the supplementary responsibility of the security obligor,which is more simple and approximate compared to the 6th article of"Judicial Interpretation of Personal Injury Compensation".Scholars in our country have debates in the Components,sharing of external responsibility and internal responsibility of the supplementary responsibility of the security obligor.In judicial practice,judges have different understandings on which how much responsibility the security obligor should bear and when should the security obligor assume the responsibility in addition to the recovery of the security obligor.The direct infringer infringe on the victim when the security obligor don't do his duty.The direct infringer can be on purpose and can be negligent,besides innocent.The direct infringer can breach of obligations of protecting others and can breach of obligations that one should't infringe others.The security obligor breach of the security obligations,considering these factors:the effectiveness of preventive measures,the clarity of caution,the prudence of managements,the courage to stop infringement,the timeliness of the remedy,the proper preservation of evidence.There is indirect causality relationship between the victim's loss and that the security obligor breache security obligations negligently.The security obligor take limited liability to the victim.The ceiling of the liability which the security obligor should take is total loss of the victim multiplied by the corresponding ratio.The corresponding ratio comes from fault and cause of force.The security obligor have the right to refuse to bear the supplementary responsibility,except when the direct infringer can't be sure.Though the direct infringer have no ability to compensate and can not be find,the victim can't ask directly the the security obligor to bear the supplementary responsibility.The victim can't only sue the security obligor to the court when the vctim don't sue the direct infringer.The security obligors' rights of recovery is the core of the sharing of internal responsibility of the supplementary responsibility of security obligors lThe 2nd paragraph of the 37th article of "The Tort Law" keeps a silent attitude to the security obligors' rights of recovery,which causes different explanations.You could think that the security obligor have no right of recovery,however,you could think the security obligor have a right of recovery in that the 2nd paragraph of the 6th article of "Judicial Interpretation of Personal Injury Compensation".This article argues that there are fatal flaws in which views of no rights of recovery for the security obligor.Take into account fairness and justice,the security obligors have a right of recovery.