Judicial Identification Of The Subject Of Tort Liability For Highly Dangerous Activities

The subject of responsibility is a key issue in the determination of tort liability or it can be called the core element.The law of high-risk liability is directly derived from No.73 of Tort Liability Law which clearly stipulates the operator,engaging in high-altitude,high-pressure,underground excavation activities or using high-speed orbital tools cause damage to others,should bear tort liability,while the user can be treated as the innocent if they can prove that the damage was caused by the intentional or force majeure of the victim.According to the regulation,we can find that the liability of the operator can be alleviated if the infringer is at fault for the occurrence of the damage.In fact,the operator is not clearly defined in china.Judge always feel puzzled when this concept encounters specific cases in judicial practice.What's more,everyone's definition of operator is inconsistent roughly.In this situation,the scholar has already paid attention to the research on the interpretation and scope of the words of the operator while it is still difficult to form a general statement.As far as the explanation of operator is concerned,there are currently two different opinions based on the issue: one is to limit the concept of operator to real operator or only the nominal operator and the other is to explain the concept as the person who controls the activity in fact.As the different interpretation methods of operator,standards have not yet been unified in the judicial practice which lead to a large number of different judgments in the same case.No.9 of Tort Liability Law shows the view that the definitions of persons engaged in highly dangerous operations including operator,occupier,user,owner,manager and other meanings.In cases of tort liability disputes,parties often advocate defending their rights and interests based on No.85 and No.86 of Tort Liability Law which is due to the similarity of No.73 of Tort Liability Law with the above two regulations.However,in the special law,Anti-Monopoly Law,Anti-Unfair Competition Law,Consumer Rights Protection Law and Price Law have also expanded the interpretation of the operator,giving it multiple meanings.Therefore,the operator responsible for the high-risk activities should be expanded and interpreted to be an inevitable choice to comply with the legislative intent and achieve the legislative purpose.By comparing with the relevant laws and special laws of Tort Liability Law,it demonstrates that It is the right choice for making judicial decisions to definite the operator widely,combined with the theoretical analysis of thedefinition and the data summarization of current judicial adjudications.