On The Identification Of Violation Of Security Obligation

The theory of safety guarantee obligation system was initially discussed by the academic community in the "Shanghai Galaxy Hotel case" in Chinese practice,and then a judicial interpretation was issued to clearly put forward the system of safety guarantee obligation.To Create conditions for settling such cases,through the provisions of the Tort Liability Law,the Civil Code and other legal documents,the problems that such cases cannot be based on for many years and the provisions of liability is not clear were resolved at the legislative level.However,due to condensed and highly generality of legal provisions,there is no unified and authoritative provision for the identification of the violation of the security obligation.By defining the concept of the safety guarantee obligation and combined the provisions of safety guarantee obligation system of the documents of legislation in our country.And summarizing the types of fields and behaviors involved in judicial cases,the author concludes that there are some problems in identification practice,such as the standards of inconsistent identification,unclear site identification and too broad application of responsibility.To combine with the theory of the risk control of German law and the standard of rational person of British and American law similar to the compulsory system of security protection in our country.This paper analyzes the factors of restrictive identification with reference significance,and subdivides the identity and activity type of different obligatory subjects from four aspects of the subject,place,risk control and the factors of the infringed itself,and determining the content of the obligation of security protection.The factors of identification in public places should be clearly defined,and suggestions on the improvement of identification standards should be put forward in combination with the possibility of the obligatory subject’s understanding of the risk,the possibility of risk control,the cost of preventing and avoiding the risk,as well as the factors of the infringed.