Abstract
In recent years, many incidents have been reported about the infringement on consumers’ personal and property rights and interests due to the safety matters on the business premises.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Notes
- 1.
Legal Daily, September 3, 1998.
- 2.
Id., November 15 2002.
- 3.
Wang Liyi & Zhang Lixia vs Shanghai Galaxy Hotel, The Supreme People’s Court Bulletin, Volume 2 (2001), and Liu Yanhao, The Protection Obligation of Hotel for Customers, 3 Chinese Journal of Law (2001).
- 4.
Liu Youxiang vs Luoyang Railway Branch Bureau and Changsha Railway Corporation, The Supreme People’s Court Bulletin, Volume 3 (1999).
- 5.
Articles concerning the security protection duty in recent years include: Liu Shiguo, On the Security Protection Duty, 5 Chinese Journal of Law (1999); Zhang Xinbao & Guo Lirong, A Discussion on the Liability of Causing Damage by Stealing Other’s Account and Password for Securities Trading, People’s Court Daily, May 24, 2001; Liu Xinhao, supra note 3.
- 6.
It is unknown to the public how the damages of 80,000 RMB were calculated in the case of Wang Liyi & Zhang Lixia vs Shanghai Galaxy Hotel.
- 7.
Christian Von Bar (2001).
- 8.
Id., 269.
- 9.
Liu JunhaiI, Effect of WTO’S regulations and rules on China’s legal system of market economy, at http://www.civillaw.com.cn (Last visited in October 2002).
- 10.
Li and Xu (1997).
- 11.
Article 20 of the Management Regulations on Entertainment Places provides: “The legal representative or chief officers of entertainment places shall be responsible for fire safety and safety on other matters. The entertainment places shall ensure their buildings and equipment in line with the State safety standard and the technical regulations on fire fighting. The entertainment places shall make regular inspections on the conditions of the firefighting equipment and shall make timely maintenance and renewal. The entertainment places shall draw up working programmes of safety protection and plans of emergency evacuation”. Article 3 of the Management Measures on Public Order of Hotel Industry provides: “Where the hotel businesses start, the buildings, firefighting equipment, exits and passages shall be in line with the related regulations of Fire Prevention Law of the PRC and the necessary equipment for prevention from burglary shall be equipped”.
- 12.
Christian Von Bar (2001, 267).
- 13.
Li and Xu (1997, 100).
- 14.
Wang (1998).
- 15.
Cases collection of protection for customers’ rights and interests, at 6 (Chinese Customers Association ed., China Industry and Commercial Press, 1996).
- 16.
Id., 3.
- 17.
Cases Collection of Peoples court, civil cases, civil law volume II, Case 194, at 952 (Institute of Applied Jurisprudence of the Supreme Court ed., The Law Press, 2009).
- 18.
Id., 959.
- 19.
Xinbao (1998).
- 20.
Christian Von Bar (2001, 274).
- 21.
Id., 275.
- 22.
Jones (1991).
- 23.
Kionka (1999).
- 24.
Christian Von Bar (2001, 261).
- 25.
The Proposal of Torts Law of Chinese Civil Code, 2 Chinese Journal of Law (2002).
- 26.
See the author’s article published at the People’s Court Daily on May 23, 2002.
- 27.
Shi (2000).
- 28.
Supra Note 25. Article 13 writes: “The injuring party causing the personal and property damages shall assume the compensatory liability and other related liabilities. Where the injuring party cannot be determined or is not able to undertake the payments for the compensatory liability, persons with duty of safety protection for the aggrieved party’s body and property shall assume the complementary liability unless they can prove themselves to be faultless”.
- 29.
In the case where the guest was robbed and killed in a hotel, the hotel was at fault to be slack in fulfilling the duty of safety protection: the injuring party went in and out of the elevators many times and the hotel realized it but failed to do anything. It is improper to make the hotel assume the liability for breach of contract (return the accommodation fees) or assume the entire compensatory liability without considering the injuring party’s compensatory ability. See Liu Yanhao, supra note 3.
- 30.
Xinbao (1998).
- 31.
The provision on operators’ assumption of complementary liability does not mean the impunity or reduction of the compensatory liability of the third party committing the direct tortious injuring actions. The complementary liability is designed for meeting the requirement of compensations for damages from the aggrieved party.
References
Christian Von Bar (2001) The common European law of torts, vol II (Jiao Meihua trans.). The Law Press, p 271
Jones AJ (1991) Text book on torts, 3rd edn. Blackstone Press Limited, p 126
Kionka EJ (1999) Torts. The Law Press, p 77
Li C, Xu M (1997) Consumer protection law. The Law Press, p 28
Shi SK (2000) On the law of Obligations. China University of Political Science and Law, p 672
Wang Z (1998) Civil law theories and case study, vol 4. China University of Political Science and Law, p 95
Zhang XB (1998) Law of torts in China. China Social Sciences Press, p 39
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Zhang, X. (2018). Operators’ Duty of Safety Protection on Business Premises. In: Legislation of Tort Liability Law in China. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-6961-1_11
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-6961-1_11
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-10-6960-4
Online ISBN: 978-981-10-6961-1
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)