安全保障义务人的补充责任裁判规则研究

Study on the judging rules of supplementary liability of security obligors

安全保障义务人的补充责任的内容规定于我国《侵权责任法》第37条第2款,实践中对该条款的适用仍存在若干误区。通过数十起案例的归纳分析,实践中存在安全保障义务人的补充责任与按份责任混淆的现象,补充责任中存在违约责任与侵权责任竞合的情况。安全保障义务人的主体可做有限度的扩张解释,且存在复数主体时应比较其义务大小,从而确定其责任顺位和比重。安全保障义务是否履行应通过硬件和软件两个方面确定,且事后行为不能成为认定标准。责任对象中,安全保障义务人对有契约关系存在的对象负更多的安全保障义务。第三人侵权中的"第三人"应结合具体案情断定,通常情况下合同排除安全保障义务人的补充责任条款无效。

The supplementary liability of the security obligor is stipulated in Article 37（ 2） of China＇s＂Tort Liability Act＂. In practice, there are still a number of errors in the application of this provision. Through the analysis of dozens of cases, this author believes that there is a phenomenon that the security obligor＇s supplementary liability is confused with the shared responsibility in practice,and points out that there is a situation that the default liability and the tort liability co-exist in the supplementary liability. The main body of the security obligor may be explained for limited expansion. When there are plural main bodies, their obligations shall be compared to determine the priority and proportion of their responsibilities. Whether the security obligations are fulfilled or not shall be determined by both the hardware and the software,and the behavior after the event shall not become the standard of recognition. Among the responsible objects, the security obligor bears more security obligations for the objects that have contractual relationships. The＂third party＂in the third party＇s infringement should conclude with the specific facts. Under normal circumstances, the supplementary liability clause excluding the security obligation in the contract shall be invalid.