Case analysis of property management ~ asking for help ~

To put it simply, the main responsibility lies in Chen Mou, and the property is a secondary responsibility, so compensation should be paid for both. The following cases are believed to be enlightening to the landlord.

Parabolic behavior at high altitude is often committed by one person, but who is the perpetrator is the most common, intractable and controversial issue in such cases. Parabolic people are hard to find, and the injured party has no choice but to sue many residents in the building, including property companies, which are not one or two in China. In China, there have been precedents for punishment of cases in which many people are accused of throwing objects at high altitude, among which three cases are the most representative.

Ashtray box

On the night of May 10, 2000, when Hao Mou, a citizen, passed downstairs at No.65 and No.67 Xuetianwan Main Street, an ashtray fell from the sky and knocked him unconscious on the spot.

Judgment result: The court of first instance ruled that 22 of the 24 households * * * jointly bear the liability for compensation of more than 6,543,800 yuan.

Comments: Suspected, take responsibility together.

Porcelain box

June, 5438+October, 2007 10, when a lady passed the downstairs of a building in Fangcun, Liwan District, Guangzhou, a piece of porcelain falling from the sky hit a baby girl in Mrs. Mao's arms. Afterwards, the injured party sued the building 18 households on the grounds of dangerous behavior, claiming more than 50,000 yuan.

Judgment result: The court held that the act of throwing tiles was not the same as that of 18 households, so it was not a joint infringement, but an ordinary infringement, and the specific infringer should be identified and compensated. However, due to insufficient evidence, the court did not support the plaintiff's claim.

Comments: The court does not support the claim.

glass case

On the evening of May 3rd, 2006, Xiao Yu, a student from Xiangnan Primary School in Shenzhen, passed a high-rise residential building called Haolaiju and was killed by a square glass falling from the upstairs. Xiaoyu's parents sued 73 households and property companies above the second floor of Haolaiwu, demanding compensation of more than 700,000 yuan.

Judgment result: The court of first instance held that there was no evidence to prove that 73 households were at fault, but the property management company was at fault, so it was decided that the property management company should bear 30% of the liability for compensation, and 73 households were not liable for compensation.

Comments: Who is not responsible, who is responsible.