Legal Analysis On Distress Incident Of Self-service Travel

In recent years, self-service travel has been developed quickly in China. But, because we have not revelent laws and regulations to regulate this activity, our courts often have different opinions on such legal disputes, which seriously affects the efficiency of lawsuit and judicial authority. Taking Guangxi Nanning self-service travel personal damage compensation dispute case in distress for example, this paper focuses on whether hikers bear safeguard obligation among each other in legal provisions and legal principles two perspectives, in order to solve these disputes, promote the healthy and orderly development of self-service travel.In addition to introduction and conclusion, this paper is divided into four parts, the main contents of four parts are as follows:Part one: Introduction of case. This part describes the case of Guangxi Nanning self-service travel personal damage compensation dispute case in distress, including the cause of action, the basic situation of the case, and the main focus of the dispute, at last brings up the subject of this study, namely, whether hikers bear safeguard obligation among each other.Part two: Disputes and differences of opinions. This section introduces two different opinions in theory and practice fields on whether hikers bear safeguard obligation among each other. One view is that hikers bear safeguard obligation among each other. Because the process of the initiation of self-service travel is just the process of the establishment of the contract, and safeguard obligation is subordinated duty of the contract. Besides, according to the advanced theory and the temporary group theory, hikers must take care of each other. Another view is that, there are not any agreement and legal provisions on bearing safeguard obligation among hikers, so, hikers with full capacity for civil conduct, shall bear responsibility at their own risk.Part three: Legal analysis on whether hikers bear safeguard obligation among each other. This section is the focus of this paper. This section focuses on whether hikers bear safeguard obligation among each other in legal provisions and legal principles, and draws the conclusion that hikers don not bear safeguard obligation among each other. First, on the legal provisions, author discusses this topic from the contract law and tort law two respects. From the perspective of contract law, there is no agreement on safeguard obligation among hikers. The initiation process of self-service is not the establishment of contract, because there is lack of "effect means"among hikers.From the perspective of tort law, donkey head is the promoter rather than the organizer of the activity, so cannot be applied to the safeguard obligation of organizer. Second,on legal principles, this part, author discusses the topic of hikers do not bearing safeguard obligation among each other from the following four aspects: The source of safeguard obligation must be built on the basic principles of safeguard obligation, Protecting individual freedom from unlawful restriction is the proper meaning of the law, The law both need human care and self-responsibility, and Balance of rights and obligations is the normal operation of law.Part four: The conclusion of the study. In this part,author brings up her opinion on how to handle the case described in this paper, and points out, we should formulate some judicial interpretation and give full play to the typical case guidance to avoid contradictional judgment, ensure judicial authority.