| With the introduction of "tort liability law",the provisions of the eighty-seventh may be liable for compensation for the victims of the victims,the theory and judicial practice in the increasingly fierce controversy.Negative scholars agree that the provisions to increase the use of innocent people out of the responsibility of the building,is not in accordance with the principle of fairness and justice,but also a waste of social costs,the possible harm from the person responsible was not reasonable.And the beginning of the re explore the research subject under the condition of unknown injurer altitude parabolic responsibility.Before the first eighty-seventh practice by the introduction of some sentence,until after the introduction of the practice of the deadlock,but also make people doubt the possible perpetrators compensation system.This article is starting from the height of parabolic tort liability legislation,judicial and theoretical controversy,combing the controversy,think mainly falling in parabolic and whether the distinction,may the perpetrators of the unknown concept,should bear responsibility,and this is the focus of this study analyzes.On the height of parabolic tort liability,because other countries or regions and the situation of our country,the social situation is different,the legislation and case law or not,or cannot be used directly,but the fundamental law,pursuit of justice and efficiency can be reflected in the German social security obligation theory and common law as insurance system.This is the future of our country can learn from the aspects of.The final conclusion,an amendment by the use of a building may harm people blindly bear responsibility,should further clear the scope and rich relief to victims,and advocate the strict distinction between parabolic and falling objects,through a variety of remedies to constantly improve our country’s high empty parabolic liability system. |
