Who is responsible for disabling a 2-year-old child who falls from a building while visiting a neighbor's new house?

When the new house is renovated

Advertise the decoration company in the community owner group

And invite neighbors to visit

When Xu Mou and his wife, the owner of the same community, brought their 2-year-old son to visit

The son accidentally fell and caused a head injury and fell disabled

Who is responsible?

Yang Mou, the owner of a residential area in Lin'an District and a shareholder of a decoration company, posted an advertisement in the owner group during the renovation of the new house, invited neighbors to visit, and said that the key was placed at the fire hydrant at the door.

Xu and his wife did not inform Yang, took their 2-year-old son Xiaoxiao (pseudonym) to visit Yang's home on the ninth floor, during which Xiaoxiao fell from the floor-to-ceiling window that had not yet installed glass, and spent 200,000 yuan on medical expenses for Xiaoxiao in the first half of the year of treatment, and Xiaoxiao finally fell disabled due to head injury.

Mr. and Mrs. Xu then sued Mr. Yang, the decoration company, the property company, etc., arguing that Mr. Yang should bear the obligation of safety and security together with the decoration company when publishing advertisements for the decoration company, and the property company did not fulfill its supervision obligation to Yang for demolishing the external wall and installing floor-to-ceiling windows, and there was a fault. Yang Mou, the decoration company and the property company were required to jointly compensate for medical expenses, disability compensation and other losses totaling more than 500,000 yuan.

During the trial, Yang and the decoration company admitted that the decoration construction was organized by Yang himself, but Yang believed that Xu and his wife did not inform them to visit, and the child's injury had nothing to do with themselves and should not be held responsible.

The property company believes that it does not undertake the obligation of on-site construction supervision and safety management, yang mou's removal of the external wall partition window does not violate the provisions of the decoration management agreement, and the accident occurred because there is no protective measures.

After trial, the court held that:

To determine whether the actor is at fault, it is necessary to judge whether the actor has an obligation to avoid the occurrence of damage.

The legal guardian has a duty of care and care to protect the ward from danger. Mr. and Mrs. Xu brought their 2-year-old child to the construction site, which was to put him in an unfamiliar environment that was not suitable for play, and did not take care of it carefully when visiting the decoration of the house, which was the main reason for the accident and should bear the main responsibility.

Yang, as the owner of the house, took the initiative to invite others to visit the decoration of his house in the WeChat group, and informed others of the storage location of the key, which required Yang to have a basic safe visiting environment for the house that invited others to visit, and fulfilled the prudent obligation to avoid the danger of visitors.

The property company should bear part of the responsibility for Yang's behavior of changing the appearance of the house and destroying the walls of the house during the renovation process, and failing to faithfully perform its management and supervision duties.

The Lin'an court ruled in the first instance that Yang should bear 10% of the compensation liability, the property company should bear 5% of the compensation liability, and Xu and his wife should bear the rest of the losses themselves.

Mr. and Mrs. Xu appealed against the first-instance judgment, and the Intermediate Court of Hangzhou City, Zhejiang Province, rejected the appeal and upheld the original judgment.

Case Jun added

About the property company violation

Determination of responsibility for safety and security obligations:

The property company is a civil entity, does not have the power to enforce, has limited control over safety accidents such as public security and fire protection, and should not bear tort liability as long as there is a safety accident. The security obligation of the property company shall be mainly reflected in the characteristics of assistance and prevention. That is, for safety accidents such as fire protection and public security, the property company is not the primary or first responsible person, and the property company has the obligation to assist the relevant units to investigate potential safety hazards and take corresponding emergency measures to prevent the occurrence of safety accidents or the expansion of losses. The determination of whether the property company has fulfilled its safety and security obligations should be comprehensively considered in light of the property service standards stipulated in the contract, the degree of danger of the accident, and the professional management ability that matches the qualifications of the property company.

Comprehensive Lin'an Court, Judicial Case Research Institute of the Supreme People's Court

Source: Hangzhou Intermediate Court