Research On Tort Liability For Damage Caused By Drinking Togethe

China’s wine culture has a long history,and drinking together is a social communication way to enhance friendship and relationships.However,this has led to an endless number of cases of alcohol infringement.The filing rate of judicial cases related to joint drinking infringement by courts in various regions is increasing day by day.Due to the lack of unified judgment provisions for joint drinking infringement in China’s substantive law,there is a great deal of discretion and scale for Chinese judges in the trial of such cases.In addition,due to the different subjective understanding and control of the case by judges in different regions,there are many situations of "different judgments in the same case",which leads to public doubts about the fairness of the judge’s judgment results,which will seriously affect the authority and credibility of China’s judicial trial.Based on the need to improve the civil legal provisions related to joint drinking infringement,and further provide theoretical assistance for courts to adjudicate such cases,this article selects three cases with different judgment results for comparative analysis,and appropriately combines relevant research theories of domestic and foreign scholars on joint drinking behavior to sort out and study the controversial focus of judicial application.Through sorting out,it is found that:,There are mainly several major controversies: the discussion of the nature of joint drinking behavior caused by joint drinking infringement cases,the determination of the duty of care generated during the process of joint drinking,and the correct application of the principle of attribution.Firstly,it focuses on three types of joint drinking infringement cases with different judgment results,including the basic case and court judgments.By analyzing the circumstances and legal principles of these three cases with different judgment results,the focus of the dispute in the case can be summarized,and further theoretical analysis and exploration can be conducted around the focus of the dispute.Secondly,discuss the key issues summarized in the case,and conduct legal analysis from two different perspectives: practical and theoretical,in accordance with the provisions of Chinese law.As for the nature of joint drinking behavior,the author believes that the joint drinking behavior does not have the declaration of will that produces civil legal consequences subjectively,and it is more consistent with the legal principle and reason to identify it as a friendship behavior.Next,the focus will be on analyzing the duty of care applied by courts in various regions in the practical trial process.By comparing different academic theories on the source,nature,and judgment standards of duty of care,combined with China’s national conditions and practical operational possibilities,the author believes that applying general duty of care is more reasonable.Finally,a legal and practical analysis is conducted on the principle of liability for infringement and the rationality of the division of compensation standards in practice.The principle of liability should be recognized as fault liability,and the concept of applying the principle of fairness for compensation in practice does not comply with the latest theoretical provisions of the Civil Code,and blindly applying it will lead to chaos in social fairness and order;The compensation liability arising from the principle of attribution should comply with certain standards and scales,be judged reasonably in accordance with legal provisions,and in combination with actual situations.In addition,based on the above case analysis and legal understanding,reasonable legal suggestions are proposed from multiple levels to address a series of practical application issues caused by the controversial focus.It is hoped that this can provide some theoretical assistance and thinking for the resolution of issues related to joint drinking infringement in China,and further maintain the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.