Does the property have the responsibility to protect the owner's personal safety?

First, the property management company has the obligation to protect the personal and property safety of the owners. Whether a property company should undertake the obligation to protect the owner's personal and property safety is a controversial issue in judicial practice. In particular, Article 8 of the Judicial Interpretation on the Trial of Property Service Disputes (Draft for Comment) promulgated by the Supreme Court in 2008 clearly stipulates the security obligations of property companies, while the Interpretation on Several Issues Concerning the Specific Application of Laws in the Trial of Property Service Disputes finally promulgated in 2009 does not stipulate this. Some people even think that this means that the view that "property companies have security obligations" has been rejected by the Supreme Court, and there is neither legal basis nor reasonable basis for asking property service companies to undertake security obligations. (1) The property service contract stipulates that the property service contract shall be signed by the owner and the property management company on their own initiative. Both parties can stipulate in the contract that the property services provided by the property management company to the owner include safety aspects, and the owner will also pay corresponding remuneration for this, so the safety guarantee obligation can be agreed as a contractual obligation. In practice, the property service contract signed by the property company and the owner usually contains certain security obligations, and the property company will also be equipped with special security personnel, establish relevant security systems, install necessary electronic monitoring systems, and improve the enclosure facilities around the service area. The security work in the property service area is an important daily work of the property company. Therefore, generally speaking, the security obligation of property service enterprises is not based on the direct provisions of the law, but on ordinary contracts. (II) Direct provisions of the law The legal provisions on the security obligations of property companies are mainly reflected in two aspects: First, the special law on property management, that is, the provisions of Articles 46 and 47 of the Property Management Regulations, clarify the basic content and scope of the security obligations of property companies, and are the most basic and minimum provisions of the security obligations of property companies. If the above clauses are excluded from the realty service contract, it is invalid. Second, it comes from the provisions of Article 6 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Laws in the Trial of Personal Injury Compensation Cases and Article 37 of the Tort Liability Law. In fact, the criterion for judging whether the parties undertake the obligation of safety guarantee is not whether the undertaker has the status of "operator", but whether he has the control over the hazard source. As a property company that actually manages the property service area, its control over the dangerous sources in the area is obviously higher than that of the owners. Therefore, it not only conforms to people's daily life experience, but also has corresponding legal basis for property companies to undertake corresponding security obligations under certain circumstances. Second, the standard for judging whether the property company violates the security obligation Whether the property company violates the security obligation mainly depends on the content of the security obligation, and the security obligation depends on the agreement of the property service contract and the provisions of relevant laws; At the same time, according to the second paragraph of Article 3 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Specific Application of Laws in the Trial of Property Service Disputes, if there are specific provisions on security in the service commitments and service rules of property management companies, they should also be used as the basis for investigating whether they fulfill their security obligations. However, according to common sense, "security is not equal to bodyguards", and the security services provided by property management companies are mainly to safeguard the security obligations of public areas, and it is impossible to assume absolute security obligations for the personal and property safety of owners. Therefore, whether the property company violates the security obligation should be determined by considering the amount of security fee paid by the owner, the security ability of the property company, the nature and degree of breach of contract or infringement, and a series of measures taken by the property company after the accident. Third, the security obligation of the property company is an obligation of conduct rather than an obligation of result. Legally speaking, the security obligation of a property company is an obligation of conduct rather than an obligation of result. If the property company has fulfilled its security obligations, even if the community owners have personal and property damage, they should not bear civil liability for compensation. This is because the security guards of property companies are neither police nor bodyguards, and the duties of police and bodyguards cannot be imposed on security guards. Security business is of a service nature. Security guards can be equipped with non-lethal defense tools, but they are not allowed to be equipped with electric batons, handcuffs and police ropes. Moreover, even the public security organs of state violence organs cannot completely prevent and stop the occurrence of illegal and criminal acts. Therefore, the security service in the property service should be understood as creating convenient and safe conditions for the use of the property and providing preventive services for public order and public safety in the property service area. This obligation is more of a duty of care, vigilance and prevention. It is impossible to completely guarantee that the property and personal rights and interests of the owners will not be damaged, and this can only be reduced. Therefore, if the owner's personal and property rights and interests are damaged, the property company should compensate, which is obviously unfair to him; Only when the property company fails to fulfill the duty of care and diligence of the kind manager, that is to say, it is at fault, will it bear the corresponding liability for compensation. The above is the relevant information about the property's obligation to protect the owner's personal and property safety. To sum up, the property management company has a certain security obligation to the owner, but this obligation is manifested in the subjective and positive protection of the owner's life and property safety, rather than the compensation obligation of the owner after being damaged. If you have any other questions, please consult online.