Before Jiang Ge's mother Jiang Qiulian sued Liu Nuanxi (formerly known as Liu Xin)，The two parties have been fermented on the Internet for a long time。The court of first instance of the defendant in this case, the People's Court of Chengyang District, Qingdao City, Shandong Province, sentence，All sectors of society are discussions，The legal community also pays close attention to this case，Disputes on referee documents。On the morning of February 16，The second trial of the case opened in Qingdao Intermediate Court，After nearly 4 hours of trial，The court announced the optional sentence。

The legal facts of disputes caused by the two parties in the case occurred before the implementation of the Civil Code，According to the "Several Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on the Effectiveness of the Laboratory of the People's Republic of China" (Fa Shi [2020] No. 15)，The court should apply the Civil Single Law of the Civil Code for the Civil Code。As far as the right to request right，The plaintiff can choose: First，Special rules for seeking righteousness，That is, Article 23 of the Law of the Infringement Responsibility Law (derived from Article 109 of the Principles of the Civil Law) and the "Explanation of Several Issues of the Supreme People's Court on the Application of Laws on the Application of Laws of Personal Damage Compensation Cases" (Fa Shi [2003] No. 20) Article 15。Based on this，When the direct harm Chen Shifeng is unable to bear the liability for compensation，Compensation owner Jiang Qiulian can request the beneficiary Liu Nuanxi to compensate appropriately within the beneficiary scope。The content of Article 183 of the Civil Code is more detailed，Professor Yang Lixin called it China's "Thanksgiving Law"。Second，Infringement liability rules，In this case，The plaintiff Jiang Qiulian chose this case.。The second case is much more difficult to apply than the law of the first case。

　　bet365 live casino games

After the right is damaged，In principle, "damage stops at what is issued" (Holmes)，Only when the behavior of others is in line with the constituent part of the infringement liability，The victim can ask others to bear the liability of infringement。In this case，The death of Jiang Ge is the direct consequence of Chen Shifeng's implementation of infringement; if Chen Shifeng did not implement infringement，Ji Jiang Ge cannot be killed。Liu Nuanxi did not directly implement the act of infringing the right to life of Jiang Ge，Therefore, when confirming whether Liu Nuanxi should bear the liability for infringement of Jiang Ge's death，First of all, it must be determined whether Liu Nuanxi has the obligation to bear the behavior of Jiang Ge。The first trial judgment book generally refers bet365 live casino games to behavior obligations as "attention obligations and safety guarantee obligations"，To be precise，The behavioral obligations of the infringement liability law include the following two types。

One is to pay attention to obligations。This is the obligation of "all people to all people"，Its specific content is，Any member of the society bear respect、Obligations that do not infringe on other people's legal rights and interests。This obligation is the bottom line requirements to maintain the order of rights，It is also in line with the basic expectation of the public in social life that it will not infringe on others' legitimate rights and interests。So，Liu Nuanxi is the same as other members of the society，Both the attention obligations of Jiang Ge who do not infringe on his right to life。

The second is the obligation of security and guarantee。This obligation requires actors to take positive action，Ensure that the rights of others are not infringed，Including the violation of the criminal behavior of the third person。The general rules in the field of infringement liability law are，Civil subjects do not assume security obligations。The reason is: First，Defending the freedom of action of civil subject，If the civil subject has the obligation to protect other members，It will undoubtedly constitute a major restriction on its freedom; second，Civil subjects bear this obligation to be the power of the country，and let the state organs evade their legal duties to citizens within the constitutional framework; finally，Civil subjects are usually unable to bear this obligation，Even if you barely bear，It will also pay a high price。my country's current law also adheres to this principle，Article 1005 of the Civil Code also stipulates that only "organizations or individuals with legal rescue obligations or individuals" have a timely rescue obligation to natural persons when their personality is invaded。

But this principle also has exceptions，This is mainly seen in two situations: First, there is a special relationship between civil subjects，Such as close relatives、Contract parties; Second, the actor has caused some objective risk。

In this case，Should Liu Nuanxi bear the infringement liability for Jiang Ge's death，The most fundamental question is whether she assumes security obligations to Jiang Ge，is to prevent Chen Shifeng from implementing infringement or preventing damage from expanding? The court's judgment was affirmed based on two reasons: First, Liu Nuanxi introduced and maintained the danger of Jiang Ge being infringed by Chen Shifeng，Therefore, reasonable measures should be taken as much as possible to avoid dangerous reality，Causes the consequences of actual damage。Second, Jiang Ge rescued Liu Nuanxi，Including "providing a safe residence for it，Perspective、Rescue and protection behavior "，So，Jiang Ge "has a reasonable trust in Liu Nuanxi"，Liu bet365 live casino games Nuanxi's attention to Jiang Ge's "Higher Honesty Notice and Good Wicker Reminder"。Legically，Liu Nuanxi argued with Chen Shifeng for help to Jiang Ge，that is, the continuous risk of manufacturing and maintaining Jiangge's infringement，In the modern infringement law that avoids dangerous reality in the modern infringement law that avoids dangerous reality，It can be determined that Liu Nuanxi assumes a legal security obligation to Jiang Ge。In addition，Based on Liu Nuanxi and Jiang Ge's special relationship arising around the assistance and the previous behavior of Liu Nuanxi for help，can also draw the same conclusion。The first trial judgment book from "judicial referee should protect social moral bottom line，Promoting virtue and righteousness，Starting the goal of guiding the whole society to admire the good "，On the one hand, it is determined that Jiang Ge reflects the traditional virtue of helping the crisis，worth commented，On the other hand, it is determined that Liu Nuanxi is not only forgotten，I also did a "violation of the people's feelings" behavior。The reason why the judgment is resorted to moral demonstration Liu Nuanxi has a security obligation to the Jiangge，Its purpose should be in the judicial atmosphere that is highly concerned by society in this case，Judicial rhetoric through the core reason of the judgment，The legitimacy of obtaining and strengthening the judgment，But whether it is necessary to be legal，worth studying。

　　Liu Nuanxi violated behavior obligations

Whether Liu Nuanxi violates behavioral obligations，Another key element for determining whether the liability for infringement in this case，Its elements include whether the behavior is illegal and whether the actor is fault。In our country's theory and practice，The relationship between illegality and fault is more chaotic: on the one hand，illegality is often absorbed by faults; on the other hand，Merchants often judge through behavioral violations or results illegal。The following two comprehensive analysis of these two elements analyze whether Liu Nuanxi violated the behavior of behavior。

First，Liu Nuanxi violated the obligation to pay attention? Pay attention to the obligation is mainly reflected in inaction，That is, the actor shall not implement active behavior to infringe on others' rights。After the dispute between Liu Nuanxi and Chen Shifeng，Help Jiang Ge，Despite the development of the post -event situation，Its behavior places Jiang Ge in a dangerous state，But asking friends for help is a normal social behavior，It does not have illegality，Therefore, Liu Nuanxi did not violate the general attention obligations to bear Jiang Ge。

Second，Liu Nuanxi violated security obligations? The typical state of violating the obligations of security is that it should be used as an inaction。Determine whether Liu Nuanxi violates security obligations，You need to consider the following bet365 Play online games four levels of questions。

One is whether Liu Nuanxi can take emergency helling，Stop its inaction illegality? The core element of emergency avoidance is the importance of the legal benefits of different subjects.。When Liu Nuanxi and Jiang Ge also face the risk of being infringed by personality rights，The two of them are exactly the same，Therefore, as Professor Jin Coco, it is pointed out，Liu Nuanxi's inaction is not satisfied with the requirements of emergency risk aversion。

Second, can Liu Nuanxi foresee that Chen Shifeng's risk of infringing Jiangge's personality rights? Can you foresee the standard of common person，That is the general life experience of members of society，At the same time, combine the specific status of the actor。The first instance judgment believes，Liu Nuanxi based on the love relationship with Chen Shifeng，You should understand Chen Shifeng's personality and behavior，And Chen Shifeng continued to implement tracking、entanglement、Anti -behavior，Liu Nuanxi also expressed his fear of psychology to Jiang Ge，and ask Jiang Ge to wait for it to return to the apartment together，Explain that Liu Nuanxi has realized that his safety is seriously threatened。The judgment does not indicate whether Liu Nuanxi can foresee this danger，Especially the danger of Jiangge。From the case of this case，Chen Shifeng and Liu Nuanxi、Jiang Ge met in the apartment，Liu Nuanxi seems to be foresee that Chen Shifeng may implement the behavior of infringing Jiang Ge's life。However, you can also get the opposite view after careful investigation，After all, Chen Shifeng's revenge is not Jiang Ge，but Liu Nuanxi。Judgment determination Liu Nuanxi did not fully fulfill the obligation of goodwill reminders and honesty，and prevent Jiang Ge from reporting to the police，and ask Jiang Ge to accompany him to return to the apartment late at night，Obvious fault。But the premise of this identification is that Liu Nuanxi realized that Chen Shifeng's potential risk that must be intervened and stopped by police。If this danger exists，Even if Jiang Ge agrees not to call the police，You can also determine that Liu Nuanxi violated the security obligations。

Third, does Liu Nuanxi have the ability to prevent Chen Shifeng from implementing damage or prevent damage from expanding? Any civil subject that undertake security obligations，When a third person performed crimes, especially the violent criminal behavior that hurts personal，The ability to prevent criminal behavior or the ability to prevent damage is limited。"Difficulties in the law are not strong"，Therefore, any security obligations have their border，Violation of security obligations cannot adopt the results of violations，can only be adopted as a violation of view，That is, as long as the actor is doing it reasonably、The necessary security obligations，Even if it fails to prevent damage or expand，The actor Bet365 lotto review did not violate the security obligations。At the time of the crime，Liu Nuanxi faced Chen Shifeng, holding the weapon with the weapon，It is difficult to say that it has the ability to prevent the murder，If Liu Nuanxi enters the door, he will report to the police as soon as possible、Seek the rescue of medical institutions in time after the damage occurs，It seems difficult to determine that it has not fulfilled its obligation to security。Some cases of the United States，Operators who undertake security obligations，When a third person committed a criminal behavior that hurts the customer，Just call the police in time，is to fulfill the security obligations of security。

Fourth, should Liu Nuanxi sacrifice his personality rights to protect Jiang Ge? Truely，The answer is yes。However, it is legal，Establishment obligations do not need to sacrifice themselves to fulfill their obligations to protect others，Even if the danger is triggered by the obligation,。If the obligations of the security are not forced to infringe，A compensation obligations should be assumed to the victim。The first instance judgment believes，Under the urgent situation of Chen Shifeng's implementation of illegal infringement，Liu Nuanxi enters the room first and locks the door，As a result, Jiang Ge could not enter the door，Therefore, Liu Nuanxi did not fulfill the obligation of security，And Liu Nuanxi's obligation to notify the danger、Prevent alarm and prevent Jiang Ge from entering the door，"There are major faults"，At least "major fault" evidence is still not enough，Need to be strengthened，If there is a possibility of making Jiang Ge enter the door、Chen Shifeng threatened Liu Nuanxi's content and whether Chen Shifeng chased Liu Nuanxi at the time of the incident、The degree of fierceness of the dispute between Chen Shifeng and Jiang Ge。From a moral perspective, Liu Nuanxi does not have any obstacles to Jiang Ge's negative security obligations，Because this is exactly the same as the conclusion of the legal analysis; but accordingly, it is determined that Liu Nuanxi violates the security obligations，It may replace legal judgment with moral emotions。In this regard，The judgment should respond to a voice of the network: if Liu Nuanxi does not have words and deeds that stimulate Jiangge's family afterwards，But full of guilt and soothe their family，Can the two parties be a lawsuit?

　　How should Liu Nuanxi bear the infringement liability

The first trial judgment determines that Liu Nuanxi should bear the infringement liability，Then Liu Nuanxi and Chen Shifeng will inevitably constitute the debt of the majority of people。But it does not know that Liu Nuanxi bear the nature of debt。There are two views on the academic community: First, Article 12 of the "Infringement Liability Law"，Liu Nuanxi and Chen Shifeng shall assume the liability for infringement on Jiang Qiulian in accordance with his fault; the second Bet365 app download is that Article 37, paragraph 2, paragraph 2 of the Infringement Responsibility Law shall be applied to the provisions of the third party's infringement，Liu Nuanxi takes supplementary responsibility。The reason for the former is，The actor's implementation of infringement caused damage，and a single infringement is not enough to cause all damage; the reason for the latter is，If the third person does not implement the direct intentional infringement behavior，The damage will not happen at all，The harmful actor who violated the obligations of security and the behavior of the third person is not comparable to，Responsibility is not at a level。When Chinese law has innovated "supplementary responsibility"，The second point of view should be more appropriate。

The remarkable point of the first instance judgment is，Mental damage compensation is as high as 400,000 yuan，This is unique in the case of negligence infringement。The judgment has confirmed two mental damage in essence: First, the mental damage suffered by Jiang Qiulian due to the death of Jiang Ge，That is "the pain of bereavement"。Natural person after death due to infringement，The mental damage compensation requested by its close relatives is the mental damage it has suffered，The right to request the mental damage of the deceased's inheritance，"Explanation of the Supreme People's Court on Determining Several Issues on Determining Civil Infringement Mental Damage Compensation" is not clear，Explain it as the mental damage of close relatives itself seems more appropriate。The first trial judgment also adopts this view。Second, Liu Nuanxi's mental damage caused by stimulating stimulating remarks to Jiang Qiulian。Article 22 of the "Infringement Liability Law" does not recognize "pure mental damage"，Mental damage will inevitably accompany the damage of personal rights and interests。Jiang Qiulian's injuries due to Liu Nuanxi's remarks, the damage to the damage to the person's rights and interests includes the right to psychological health、Honorary power, etc.，Therefore, this mental damage it suffers should also be compensated。Look from the litigation mark，Jiang Qiulian's mental damage due to Jiang Ge's death can certainly be tried in this case; but after Jiang Ge's death，Liu Nuanxi's direct infringement behavior causes mental damage to Jiang Qiulian，Is another legal facts different from this case，Theoretically unable to merge trial。But the consideration of reducing litigation and so on，The court merged the trial of mental damage request，It has its reasonableness。

　Yu Lun

Civil Law not only absorbs the bottom line of social morality，It also included in Virtue to a certain extent，But the field of infringement liability only requires the actor to follow the bottom line of morality。The first instance judgment is used to integrate the law and morality as much as possible，To promote the core values Bet365 lotto review ​​of socialism，Make the judgment achieve a good social effect，Its starting point is understandable。Jiang Ge and Liu Nuanxi presented by the judgment are almost the poles of morality: one side presents traditional virtues，One party has gone over the bottom line of morality。But even if you do not resort to Taoist，The requirements of the bottom line ethics based on the infringement liability and the attention of the danger of the danger in the modern infringement liability law，It can also be determined that the introduction of dangerous parties in social communication should bear a reasonable security obligation to the other party。

The real problem is，The degree of personal performance of security obligations is very limited，It is easy to be exempted by prove that it has fulfilled its reasonable and necessary security obligations，This will hurt the public emotion，Especially in this case。Liu Nuanxi's violation of security obligations, especially the degree of violation of security obligations, needs to be thoroughly checked，The idea of ​​compensation for the beneficiary can be considered。Although Jiang Qiulian did not file this lawsuit，But in explanation，Damage to the right of life of Jiang Ge leads to beneficiated by Liu Nuanxi，Liu Nuanxi should naturally bear the compensation obligations。As for the specific share of compensation，then the court can be determined by the court，And the court can consider mental damage at all times as appropriate。

　　(the author is a researcher at the Institute of Law of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences)