The Responsibility About Breach Of Security Obligations

Security obligation is formed and developed under the principle of faith and based on the need of distributive justice. In the cushion of theory and practical experience, Tort Liability Act Article 37 established the system, reflected that "human being's security is the supreme law." However, there are still a lot of questions in responsibility about breach of security obligations.The existence of act obligation and the negligence of breach the obligation constitute the foundation of responsibility commitment. For the act obligations, they mainly come from public places' management behavior and public activities' organizational behavior; under the guidance of objective fault, the judge of fault should comprehensive use legal standards, industry standards, reasonable person standard and cost-effectiveness standard. For the fault's proof, presumption of fault should be used and defendant have the duty to prove he have fulfilled the act obligation. That is because we can not expect victim have too much proof capacity, and presumption of fault is more in line with the characteristics of U.S. and Germany in general practice.The meanings of "organizer" and "manager" in Tort Liability Act Article 37 should be understood in expansion way, the owners and operators, promoters and organizers of the activities should be included. We should follow the principles of people-oriented, maintaining social harmony, and follow the civil law and form meaningful sense of the system mandatory requirements when defining the security obligator. So the modest expansion of obligator range can get maximize functionality of the system. The introduction of social hosts' security obligations in the times of maintaining the unity of justice can also help control the confusion of drunk driving. Put property services business into the main scope of security obligator, the reality basis is Property Management Regulations' lack in solution and the theory basis is control theory and the risk of people-oriented theory; security obligations in people who have special relationship have gotten the support of comparative law, and also conducive to resolving some confusion in practice. There's no argument that security obligator assume direct responsibility when he directed the result of damage; but when there a third party involved in the case, theorists have different views such as direct responsibility, supplementary liability, joint and several liability. The comparison of these ways of responsibility proved that Tort Liability Act's additional responsibilities is more reasonable, but the rules apply to reconstruction, to return to the traditional connotations of not-really joint responsibility. For the external rule, should remove the "appropriate" term, variable part of the supplement for the entire supplement; for the internal rules, we can give people security right of recourse obligations; for the procedural rules, it should change one-way necessary joint sue into necessary joint sue.Breach of security does not mean absolute obligation to take responsibility, in addition to third party causes the damage occurred, the victims'negligence and assumption of risk can also reduce the defendant's responsibility. The rule of victims' negligence rule in the field of security obligations should be based on the distinction of with or without third party intervention. Only in certain circumstances we can sure that victim have "balance" fault. The assumption of risk rule should also be in clear limitation:only in high risk people activities, defendant can only defense the general fault, activities, risk can be foreseen, the victim accepts the risk may occur, and the victim have no legal or moral obligation.