經營者未能防範第三人致害之侵權責任的合理認定

How to Determine Operators' Liability of Failure for Duty of Care in Intervening from Third Parties

《侵權責任法》規定經營者在未盡到安全保障義務時，應當對第三人行為造成的損害承擔相應的補充責任。但是對這種安全保障義務的合理限度認定一直是司法實踐中的難點。而普通法上經營者防範第三人犯罪的注意義務之可預見性規則、因果關係認定以及公平正義的衡量，反映了普通法在解決這一難題上的務實性與靈活性。在我國，經營者承擔未盡到安全保障義務的侵權責任同樣應當結合具體案情作個案分析，在司法實踐中不斷豐富完善安全保障義務理論。

According to Tort Law, the operators should be liable for the victims' harm by a third party, if the operators failed to meet the obligation. However, the reasonable limit of duty of care is central issue in practice. This paper focused on the forseeability, proximity and fairness in the common law, noted that tort liability for failure of duty of care should be related in specific cases in trial, and then improved the theory of duty of care.