Research On Tort Liability Of Violating The Safety-guard Duty

The security guarantee obligation system originated in Germany and was created by German courts through judicial precedents.The countries with the civil law system and the Anglo-American law system have established similar legal systems according to the judicial practice in various countries.The theory of China's security and protection obligations first appeared in the form of judicial interpretation.The Decree of the President of the People's Republic of China raised the concept of security obligations to the legislative level for the first time.However,the Decree of the President of the People's Republic of China only provides a principled provision for safety and security obligations,and there are still some disputes in judicial practice.The paper is divided into five parts:The first part demonstrates the irrationality of China's safety and security obligations by using a practical case.That is,there is a problem that the subject scope is ambiguous,the proportion of supplementary responsibility is too subjective,and the right of the obligor is not clear.The second part discusses the basic theory of security protection obligations.The safety guarantee obligation mainly refers to the obligations of those engaged in business activities or other organizers of the public activities,who should make reasonable efforts to protect others from harm;its nature should be judged on the basis of specific cases;its constituent elements of responsibility are damages,Illegal acts,causation,and subjective faults.Obligors' responsibility is divided into their own responsibility and supplementary responsibility.The third part examines the system of security and security obligations of civil law and common law countries.In the legislative and judicial practice,the two major legal system countries do not limit the scope of application of security protection obligations to a certain extent.On the contrary,they also gradually expand the scope of application of security protection obligations through the promotion of theory and practice.The fourth part is to improve the proposal.China should use foreign experience for reference and combine with our judicial practice to appropriately expand the scope of the main body of the obligation.And reasonably define the proportion of commitments for supplementary responsibilities.In addition,it is necessary to clarify that obligors have the right to recovery so that victims can get relief in time.The fifth part summarizes practical cases.The property did not ensure the safety of facilities and equipment within the scope of management,did not establish a sound safety management system,personnel management was not institutionalized,and illegal activities were not prevented or stopped.The property in this case did not fulfill its safety guarantee obligations.