Research On The Legal Regulation Of Damage Caused By Falling Objects

The liability for damage caused by falling objects has always been the focus of legislation and judicature because of its serious damage consequences and difficulty to identify the infringer.The provisions of Article 87 of the Tort Liability Law make up for the legislative gap of liability for damage caused by falling objects,though the way of undertaking responsibility in which the responsibility lies with innocent potential perpetrator has long been controversial in the academic circle and the public.And this stipulation does not achieve the ideal effect in the judicial practice,with lots of "unsettled cases,unfinished matters" existing.Under this background,the Civil Law Code Draft has amended the provisions on liability for damage caused by falling objects,added the liability of building managers for breach of security obligations,making the liability for damage caused by falling objects under the Tort Law system show the legislative trend of multiple imputation of "possible offender" liability combined with the liability of building managers and comprehensive measures.However,the evolution of legislation does not give enough response to the dispute of liability for damage caused by falling objects,and the legal regulation of liability for damage caused by falling objects still faces duel dilemma from the perspective of interpretation and legislation.The definition range,subject,way of bearing and imputation principle of the liability for damage caused by falling objects are all controversial from the theory of explanation.The issues of whether the design of the rules for liability for damage caused by falling objects is justified and whether there is a feasible improvement path for its relief mechanism are still divergent from the theory of legislation.To solve the above problems,first of all,liability for damage caused by falling objects could be divided into "possible perpetrator" liability and building manager's liability examined within the framework of the general theory of liability for damage caused by falling objects.In terms of "possible perpetrator" liability,it is unreasonable to take "possible perpetrator" as the responsible body,though the necessity of its existence should be recognized under the social background of imperfect relief system.However,because it lacks causality with the damage consequences and accountability as responsible body,and bears the compensation responsibility,so its imputation principle is different from doctrine of presumption and equitable liability principle,and should be understood as the imputation mode of presumption of perpetrator.Its way of bearing liability is different from joint and several liability of joint dangerous act,which should be understood as bearing shared liability.The liability of building managers should be understood as the legislative extension of liability for breach of security obligations under Article 37 of the Tort Liability Law,based on which the reasonability and feasibility of building managers as the responsible body should be recognized.And as the imputation principle and the ways of bearing liability of building managers in the Civil Law Code Draft are vague,we should understand the imputation principle of the liability of building manager as the doctrine of presumption and the way of bearing liability as the supplementary liability from the nature and legislative evolution of security obligations of building managers.Secondly,we should dialectically view the rule system of liability for damage caused by falling objects from the theory of legislation.As for the liability of "possible perpetrator",we should affirm its positive role in relieving the rights of victims,reasonably sharing losses and realizing the function of prevention,but we should also be soberly aware of its lack of legal legitimacy,poor implementation effect,and easy to induce moral hazard.As for the liability of building managers,the rule design has legal legitimacy and could effectively relieve the rights of victims,but it also has the shortage of applicability and is easy to cause conflicts between property and owners.Finally,we should establish diversified relief mechanisms for the disputes over the damage caused by falling objects,and the social relief system in the form of "social relief fund" and the insurance relief system in the form of "compulsory liability insurance" are two practical paths worth exploring.