安全保障责任在实践中应用广泛，但该制度的适用在理论和实务中素有争议。随着《民法典》的颁行，前民法典时代许多悬而未决的争议需要在新的民法体系内，以法教义学的方法来探索更为确切、合理的解释。本文采用“安全保障责任”的措辞选择，特指以《民法典》第1198条为中心的规则群，即“违反安全保障义务而产生的侵权责任”。安全保障责任规则体系以《民法典》第1198条为中心条款，其他法律中明确使用“安全保障义务”的法条为游离条款，公法规范和民法基本原则为“安全保障义务”的制度供给，绝对权请求权为辅助性请求权基础。《民法典》第1165条的一般过错侵权责任与安全保障责任是法条竞合关系。安全保障责任须以“间接侵权”为特征，“安全保障义务人实施直接侵害”不是安全保障责任，应适用第1165条的一般过错侵权。以“不作为”为前提的“阻断性”因果关系是安全保障责任的实质——“通常不会致损的、不具有全部原因力的不作为＋直接引发损害的偶然性事实”相结合的“1+1”模式。安全保障责任的主旨是实现不幸损害的合理分配，它是风险分配正义在侵权法中的集中体现。安全保障责任的受保护对象在特定场合下可以请求义务人保护其合法权益，期待自己的合法权益不受损害。安全保障义务的发生标志在于活动的参与，义务的消灭包含受保护对象脱离活动场景、明示放弃安全利益、自甘冒险三种情况。安全保障义务覆盖风险现实化的前、中、后三个阶段，分别体现为非紧迫状态下提供安全保障资讯的义务、紧迫状态下提供有效保护的义务、损害发生后提供及时救助的义务。司法实践中应运用动态体系论的研究方法对安全保障义务进行具体化。妨碍安全状态的救济以《民法典》第1167条为请求权基础，包括停止侵害、排除妨碍、消除危险等实际履行安全保障义务的请求权。抽象的安全保障责任是指安全保障义务人没有达到立法者所设定的基本标准（抽象安全保障义务）时，直接进行因果关系推定，进而认定安全保障责任成立，义务人须对受保护对象负概括性保护责任的类型。具体的安全保障责任是由于安全保障义务人违反安全保障义务，导致原本有机会得以避免的损害实际发生了，从而根据其原因力和过错大小承担的侵权责任。适用“相应的补充责任”时，首先由直接造成损失的主体承担第一性责任，在其不能承担的剩余责任范围内，由安全保障义务人在其最大责任限额内承担补充责任，最后，安全保障义务人有权就其所承担的责任份额向第三人追偿。
Security guarantee liability is widely used in practice, but the application of this system is controversial in theory and practice. With the promulgation of the civil code, many unresolved disputes in the pre civil code era need to explore a more accurate and reasonable interpretation with the method of legal dogma in the new civil law system. This paper adopts the choice of wording of "security guarantee responsibility", especially referring to the rule group centered on article 1198 of the civil code, that is, "tort liability arising from violation of security obligations". The rule system of security guarantee responsibility takes article 1198 of the civil code as the central clause, the legal provisions that explicitly use "security guarantee obligation" in other laws are free clauses, the norms of public law and the basic principles of civil law are the system supply of "security obligation", and the absolute right claim is the basis of auxiliary claim. The general fault tort liability and security guarantee liability in article 1165 of the civil code are in concurrence. The security guarantee liability must be characterized by "indirect tort". The "direct tort by the security obligor" is not the security guarantee liability, and the general fault tort of article 1165 should be applied. The "blocking" causality based on "Inaction" is the essence of security guarantee liability – the " 1 + 1 " mode combining "inaction that usually will not cause damage and does not have all causal force + accidental facts that directly cause damage". The main purpose of security guarantee liability is to realize the reasonable distribution of unfortunate damage. It is the concentrated embodiment of risk distribution justice in tort law.The protected object of security guarantee liability can request the obligor to protect his legitimate rights and interests on specific occasions, and expect that his legitimate rights and interests will not be damaged. The sign of the occurrence of security obligation lies in the participation of activities. The elimination of obligation includes three situations: the protected object departs from the activity scene, explicitly abandons security interests and takes risks voluntarily. The security obligation covers the first, middle and last three stages of risk realization, which are respectively reflected in the obligation to provide security information in non urgent state, the obligation to provide effective protection in urgent state and the obligation to provide timely rescue after damage. In judicial practice, the research method of dynamic system theory should be used to concretize the security obligation.The relief of the state of impeding security is based on article 1167 of the civil code, including the right to request for the actual performance of the obligation of security, such as stopping the tort, removing the obstruction and eliminating the danger. Abstract security guarantee responsibility refers to the direct presumption of causality when the security obligor fails to meet the basic standard set by the legislator (abstract security obligation), and then determines that the security responsibility is established, and the obligor must bear the general protection responsibility for the protected object. The specific security guarantee liability is the tort liability borne according to its cause and fault size because the security guarantee obligor violates the security obligation, resulting in the actual occurrence of the damage that had the opportunity to be avoided. When applying the "corresponding supplementary liability", first, the subject directly causing the loss shall bear the primary liability. Within the scope of residual liability that it cannot bear, the security obligor shall bear the supplementary liability within its maximum liability limit. Finally, the security obligor has the right to recover from the third party for its share of responsibility.
