Property case: elevator injury accident

Case of property manager: 1998 12 13 In the afternoon, an elevator accident occurred in Building 405 of an industrial zone. Cui Jia, the boss of the company that opened on the fourth floor that day, wanted to use the elevator because of the purchase, but because the floor display device of the elevator was broken, they could not determine the location of the elevator, so they had to look for it on all floors and found the fifth floor. Cui Di, who walked in front, saw the elevator door open and it was dark inside, so he stepped in and fell into the elevator shaft and died.

After the incident, the property management company inspected the elevator and found that the elevator door lock on the fifth floor had fresh traces of "external damage". It is suspected that the victim was eager to use the elevator to forcibly push open the elevator door, and lost his center of gravity due to excessive force, resulting in an accident.

The victims claimed that they started to run a company here in the first half of this year and have not received any documents or notices from the property management unit about the use of elevators. He didn't know where the elevator stopped when the accident happened. How could he go to the fifth floor and break the elevator for no reason? Cui Jia sued the court and demanded compensation from the property management company.

Comments:

In this personal injury compensation case caused by the elevator accident, the focus of the problem is whether the original defendant and the defendant are at fault, whether the defendant's fault is related to the consequences of personal injury in this case, and whether they should bear the responsibility.

In this case, the property management company, as the manager of Building 405 in the industrial zone, has the legal obligation to ensure the safe operation of the elevator. Judging from the facts of the case, there are serious faults in its behavior, and it should bear civil liability for compensation, as follows: (1) The property management company failed to post elevator safety notices and precautions for passengers in the elevator car and elevator lobby. According to Article 18 of the Law on the Protection of Consumers' Rights and Interests, "Operators should give true explanations and clear warnings to consumers about goods and services that may endanger personal and property safety, and explain and mark the methods of correctly using goods or receiving services and preventing hazards." The property management company should post elevator safety instructions and precautions for passengers in elevator cars and elevator lobbies, but the property management company did not act and did not make any explanation. (2) The property management company failed to timely check and eliminate elevator faults. Elevator operation depends on its sophisticated equipment, safety devices, safe technical operation, strict safety management system and maintenance system to ensure safety. As the manager of the elevator, the property management company should implement the provisions of the Ministry of Labor on the safe use, safety management, inspection and testing of the elevator, but it neglected to troubleshoot in time, which caused the elevator floor display device to fail to display normally and the passengers could not determine the location of the elevator. (3) The fault of the property management company has a causal relationship with Cui's death. The inaction of the property management company is the direct cause of the elevator's failure to operate normally, and Cui's death is caused by the elevator's failure to operate normally, so the tort liability of the property management company is established. According to the second paragraph of Article 106 of the General Principles of the Civil Law, "Citizens and legal persons who infringe upon the property of the state or the collective or the property or person of others due to their faults shall bear civil liability", and the property management company shall bear the main responsibility of this case.

On Cui's fault responsibility. As a competent adult, Cui should have foreseen the danger of the elevator floor display device being broken and continued to take the elevator, but he insisted on looking for the elevator. On the fifth floor, he saw that the elevator door was open and it was dark inside. He should have foreseen the danger of entering the elevator, but he was at fault, subjectively at fault and obviously at fault, and he should also bear the corresponding responsibility.

The property management company found fresh traces of "external force damage" on the elevator door lock on the fifth floor, and suspected that Cui had forcibly pushed open the elevator door, but could not provide corresponding evidence. It could not be ruled out that it was done by others, so its claim was not established. This case is a mixed fault, the property management company should bear the main responsibility, and Cui should bear the secondary responsibility. In addition, suppose the property management company claims that Cui forcibly opens the elevator door, which can only reduce his responsibility, but he can't be exempted, and he still needs to bear civil liability for his own fault (inaction).