經營者風險預防義務的證成與邊界，以AED配置義務為重點

經營者對特定風險的預防義務，應受經濟分析和分配正義的雙重檢視。前者著眼於採取預防措施的邊際效益、橫向成本對比，後者落腳於風險創設、利益獲取、風險控制、合理信賴等要素的判定。以心源性猝死風險為例，自動體外除顫器（AED）是搶救心臟驟停患者的利器，置於人流量大的公共場所將極大提升救治率，收益高於成本、較個人預防亦有成本優勢。客流量高的收費運動場所、遠途公交工具創設風險並從中獲益，大規模學校和養老機構被服務對象高度依賴，經營者應負AED配置義務。現行管制規範大多對此項義務保持沉默，但已具時滯性，不應盲目採納合規抗辯，封閉私法義務。獨立生長的私法義務可充當管制立法的低成本試點，並促成風險預防成本在私人和財政間的互補分攤。地鐵站、機場、大型商超未創設風險，義務認定須謙抑，宜由財政負擔AED投放成本。這一個案揭示了經營者風險預防義務的機理，也推動著風險規制的對象延展與全景式公私法協同方案的設計。

An operator’s obligation to prevent specific risks should be subject to dual examinations of economic analysis and distributive justice. The former focuses on the marginal benefits and horizontal cost comparison of preventive measures, while the latter focuses on the determination of risk creation, benefit acquisition, risk control, reasonable trust and other factors. Taking the risk of sudden cardiac death as an example, an automated external defibrillator (AED) is a powerful tool for rescuing cardiac arrest patients. Placing it in a public place with a large flow of people will greatly increase the treatment rate. The benefits are higher than the cost and are more effective than personal prevention. There is a cost advantage. Charged sports venues and long-distance public transportation with high passenger flow create risks and benefit from them. Large-scale schools and elderly care institutions are highly dependent upon by the service recipients, and operators should bear the obligation to configure AEDs. Most of the current regulatory regulations are silent on this obligation, but it has a time lag. Regulatory compliance defenses should not be blindly adopted and private law obligations closed. Independently growing private law obligations can serve as low-cost pilots for regulatory legislation and enable complementary private and fiscal sharing of risk prevention costs. Subway stations, airports, and large supermarkets shall hardly be obligated because they have not created risks, so the finance should bear the cost of AED deployment. This case study reveals the functioning mechanism of risk prevention obligations of operators, as well as promotes the extension of the objects of risk regulation and the design of a panoramic public-private law collaboration plan