On The Relief System Of Falling Object Damage

Since 2000,China's first "Chongqing Ashtray" case has been hotly debated for more than 19 years.Although China has set a remedy for high-altitude parabolic in the Tort Liability Act of 2010,the high-altitude fall event continues to ferment.Not only did the victim's damage not be filled,but the defendant also complained on the basis of Article 87 of the Tort Liability Law and sentenced him to the responsibility of compensation.The “possibly injuring person” refuses or delays the performance of the judgment,and the victim's rights and interests have been delayed from receiving relief.Therefore,the effect of the law implementation runs counter to the original intention of the establishment.Scholars put a variety of academic cloaks on the rationality of Article 87 of the Tort Liability Law,trying to cover up their own injustice.However,we can see that the “fault presumption” presupposes the non-existent fault to “possibly harmed” when interpreting the clause: “common dangerous behavior” imposes a hat on the implementation of dangerous behavior on “possibly harmed”On the body,it is clear that there is no illegal act,but because it lives in a high-altitude parabolic accident,it indicates that it has carried out dangerous behaviors;"Public Safety Theory" raises the risk of individual individuals suffering from high-altitude falling objects to the level of social public safety.By upsizing this value,the legitimate interests of another group of people are sacrificed;the “fair responsibility theory” is because the victim cannot find a specific infringer,but the loss must be remedied.Therefore,the infringed person will be in the weak position,and the law will give more interests to it.The "possible injurer" will pay a certain amount to remedy the victim's loss.Although the "possibly injuring person" sacrifices part of the property,it does not How much will be lost and the benefits of the victims will be relieved.We can find that no matter how the scholar interprets the clause,the provisions of Article 87 of the Tort Liability Law are extremely unfair.Of course,more and more scholars are aware of the irrationality of this provision and have raised the voice of opposition and abolition.The underlying reason for this article being criticized is that China's tort law has developed to the theme of “Correcting Justice”,that is,when damage occurs,it is determined whether the party should bear the liability for damages.In the case of responsibility,no other unrelated factors will be considered.For example,even if the victim is a wealthy person with very bad moral character and the infringer is a morally noble poor,the law does not protect the rights of the infringer because the wrong person is not responsible for it.The ability to waive its liability for damages.However,the provisions of Article 87 of China's Tort LiabilityLaw clearly do not meet the requirements of “Correcting Justice”.When the law provides for the relief of the victim's loss,the victim is considered to be infringed and automatically attributed to a weak position.The status of the user has risen to the strong,and the economic sacrifice of the strong has made up for the rights of the so-called weak.This method of tilting legal rights is also known as "distribution justice." The law adopts this method of distribution largely to split the victim's losses and transfer the risk burden of the victim to “possibly harmed”.