The civil law stipulates who is responsible for the external wall falling off.

Article 1253 of the Civil Code stipulates that buildings, structures or other facilities and their shelving and hanging objects fall off, causing damage to others. If the owner, manager or user cannot prove that he is not at fault, he shall bear tort liability. After compensation, the owner, manager or user, if there are other responsible persons, has the right to recover from other responsible persons. Article 937 of the Civil Code stipulates that a property service contract is a contract in which the property service provider provides the owner with property services such as the maintenance of buildings and their ancillary facilities, the management and maintenance of environmental sanitation and related order, and the owner pays the property fee. Accordingly, the owner of the building and the second property company involved should prove that they are not at fault before they can be exempted from liability. Because the community owner signed a property contract with the property company B, and the property company B is the manager of the external wall involved in the case and should perform the safety management duties, the court ruled that the property company B should be liable for compensation.

Article 80 of the Building Law stipulates that if a building is damaged due to unqualified building quality within the reasonable service life of the building, it has the right to claim compensation from the responsible person. Article 6 1 of "Building Law" stipulates that the construction project delivered for completion acceptance must meet the specified quality standards of construction projects, have complete technical and economic data of the project and signed project warranty, and meet other completion conditions stipulated by the state. Only after the construction project is completed and accepted can it be delivered for use; Without acceptance or unqualified acceptance, it shall not be delivered for use. Therefore, when determining the responsibility of development company A, it is necessary to review the acceptance data of the building involved to see if it exceeds the quality warranty period. If the acceptance link is fraudulent or fails to pass the quality guarantee period, the construction party shall be liable for compensation. In this case, although the building involved passed the acceptance and exceeded the warranty period, it was identified that the external wall quality of the building involved was unqualified, and the court ruled that a development company was jointly and severally liable for compensation.