Study On The Damage Sharing Of The Throwing Objects Falling From High Altitude

Since the 21 st century,my country’s urbanization has developed rapidly,and the people’s living environment has been significantly improved.However,the legal awareness and moral training of some people have not improved with the rise of floors.There are frequent cases of throwing objects and falling objects from heights.Occurred,Article 87 of the Tort Liability Law of the People’s Republic of China(hereinafter referred to as the “Tort Liability Law”)stipulates how to provide relief to victims,and its theoretical disputes have caused confusion in practice and seriously affected the judicial system.just.Article 1254 of the Civil Code of the People’s Republic of China(hereinafter referred to as the "Civil Code")has been supplemented and extended on its basis,perfecting the governance rules for human damage caused by objects thrown from heights and falling objects,which has certain progressive significance.,The main highlight of the amendment is to stipulate the safety guarantee responsibilities of building managers such as property service companies.However,the provisions of this article are relatively general and have weaker operability.The academic and practical circles have suffered from falling objects from heights.At the time of damage,there have been many questions and disputes about whether the property bears the responsibility for breaching the obligation of safety protection and the reasonable limit of the responsibility.Therefore,the above problems should be further studied,and proper solutions can be put forward to protect the legitimate rights and interests of the victims when the damage caused by falling objects at heights occurs,and at the same time achieve the balance of interests between multiple parties,so as to realize the normative purpose of the legislation.The main body of this article is divided into four parts.The first part: This article first analyzes the dilemma of this type of case through empirical analysis research methods,sorting out the dispute points of the judgment of related cases,and summing up the rules on this basis in order to serve the theoretical construction and trial practice.According to the analysis of sample cases,it can be seen that in the implementation of Article 87 of my country’s Tort Liability Law,there are mainly three dilemmas among civil subjects,judicial organs,and public security organs.The main reason is that the literal and spiritual expressions of this law cannot be properly resolved.The controversy in practice did not give play to the warning and education role of the law itself,leaving room for the improvement and development of the rules of parabolic falling from heights.The second part: Analyze the concept of safety guarantee obligations,and then prove the rationality of property service companies as safety guarantee obligations from the development level of property companies and other building managers and the analysis of law and economics.Discuss the constitutive elements of the security obligation of property service companies and other building managers,and on this basis demonstrate that the obligation is a competing obligation with both legal and contractual nature.It lays a theoretical foundation for the judgment standard discussion of the safety guarantee obligation of property service enterprises.This section attempts to define the reasonable limits of safety guarantee obligations and propose clear and maneuverable standards to judge whether building managers such as property service companies actively perform their safety guarantee obligations within their management scope.The third part: Interpretation of the compensation liability of the possible offender in the rule of parabolic falling from high altitude is helpful to re-understand and evaluate the legislative legislative legitimacy and limitation of this liability rule.The liability of the possible offender does not conform to the inherent theoretical structure of the Tort Liability Law,and it also violates the consistent position of the traditional litigation theory on the burden of proof.In order to alleviate its inherent limitations and avoid abuse,attention should be paid when setting the rule of throwing objects from height in legislation.To overcome the limitations,certain restrictions are imposed on the uncertain scope of the defendant,the form of liability,and the burden of proof and other applicable conditions.The fourth part: This part will discuss the nature and distribution of responsibilities of direct infringers,property service companies and other building managers and possible offenders,prospects for other remedies and system design in the falling object case.Clarify the internal and external relationship between property service companies and other building managers and the infringer of the falling property,and bear internal responsibilities that are compatible with their respective faults.When compensation is made to the victim,it is impossible to find out and the infringer is unable to compensate.Take the responsibility and recover afterwards.At the same time,learn from the experience of other countries and regions to consider the possibility of multiple relief systems.The purpose of this part of the research is to explore the specific rules of responsibility sharing in the case of throwing objects from heights,to provide more comprehensive and effective relief to victims,to explore the possibility of the state and the government participating in relief,and to provide strong guarantee.