children did not cut off the power supply device using boiling water, they just equipment failure, two factors combine to cause a fire, coupled with the delay in the rescue of property, and finally a fire claimed two lives. ThIs case, who Will bear responsibility?
fire took place at a Car repair shop Haicang DIstrict, burned to death two sons tenant Rowe couple. Recently, Mr. Rowe couples Will do thIs boil water dIsinfection property companies and electrical equipment manufacturers and landlords are Lee to court, claims more than 200 million.
Recently, the Haicang court verdict, the defendant to property companies and manufacturers each couple 457,500.75 yuan compensation for Mr. Rowe, landlord and rental store Mr. Lee Is no need to bear responsibility.
tragedy: a fire, the owner lost two sons
Lo Is a Car Haicang DIstrict repair shop owner, he and hIs wife are happy County Fujian Province. A few years ago, Mr. Rowe in Haicang DIstrict, rented a cell door of the store. Under the “lease contract”, the landlord Lee case involving the store and the adjacent storefront leased to Mr. Rowe. After Lo tenanted premIses, documented application storefront set up involving Car maintenance services, engaged in Automotive repair services.
before the incident day, which Is about at 23:30 on March 16th, 2019, Mr. Luo two sons called barbecue takeaway to Car maintenance services, and eat after the barbecue documented sleep-related stores attic. About
at 3:55 on March 17, 2019, the case involving the store on fire. 3:56, subsequent fire wall store. 4:01, smoke alarm on the host control system subsequent series of fire, including the inner case involving store, the store next successive plurality of fire.
the same day 4:16, 119 command center received a public warning, said the case involving the store fire. Xiamen City Police Fire Brigade dIspatched a squadron of five fire engines went to dIsposal. The fire burned an area of 50 square meters, fire caused the death of the two sons of Mr. Rowe couple.
claims: parents sued the three defendants, claims more than 200 million
After the incident, the Fire Brigade Issued a “fire certificate” found: “Fire time Is at 3:17 on March 2019 may 2009 55 Xu; fire started in the case involving the coffee shop at the first floor reception area of the northern office; cause of the fire can be ruled out man-made fire, lightning, spontaneous combustion, children playing with fire, life Careless use of fire , smoking, left fire fire, boil water dIsinfection can not rule out electrical equipment failure at the table cause a fire. “
It Is understood that the electrical equipment Is sterilized by boiling water before Lo part of online shopping to buy a purple kung fu tea set to the manufacturer’s set price of 595 yuan.
Recently, Mr. Rowe Will couple thIs purpose property companies, manufacturers and landlord Lee to court.
Lo sued the couple requesting an order property companies, manufacturers together for damages totaling 180 million yuan(CNY)(CNY); decree property companies, manufacturers common compensation Rowe couple of dependents living expenses a total of more than 650,000 yuan; more than two total 2,452,011 yuan.
focus: property, manufacturers, the landlord, who bear responsibility?
The plaintiff sued the couple Rowe believes that there Is the fault of the property company and the manufacturer, should bear responsibility. Because the property company as a store operator, failed to fulfill its duty of Care and safety management, there Is no fault; and as a producer at the coffee table production boil water dIsinfection equipment manufacturers, due to product failure resulting in an accident, should bear the liability.
face prosecution claims that the defendant property company reply, said that the case of a fire in a private management area Lo, the property does not belong to the scope of property management companies. In addition, the property has fully fulfilled the obligation of property management, there Is no fault for the accident. Moreover, there are significant Lo own fault for an accident case, it should be held accountable.
the manufacturer of reply, said the plaintiffs are buying tea Is a good product, the manufacturer even if there Is responsibility, the responsibility Is very small, the plaintiff demands compensation for the fact that the project Is not legalIn accordance with the request be rejected.
defendant landlord Lee said that he would storefront leased to Mr. Rowe as Car beauty, without any fault, should not bear responsibility by the landlord.
judgment: Property and producers, each lost more than 450,000 yuan
Recently, the Haicang court verdict, judgment and property company manufacturers Will bear 25 percent responsibility, each couple 457,500.75 yuan compensation for Mr. Rowe. At the same time, the court determined that the store hire Mr. Lee does not assume legal responsibility.
The court held that the case involving two department store fire victims after use boiling water dIsinfection device fails to cut off the power, while boiling water dIsinfection equipment failure, the combination of two factors together fires. In addition, the property company as a store of fire facilities management unit for the poor implementation of fire safety systems, not only did the police immediately after the fire, and the fire control duty room property hosts not on duty, pursuant to a global Auto-switching the host, the case involving storefront installation of fire sprinkler systems in case of fire could not play the role of a normal spray, resulting not been effectively dIsposed of after the store caught fire, causing the fire to spread and expand, resulting in two deaths.
Therefore, the Court of First Instance final decIsion plaintiffs bear 50% of the liability, property and manufacturers bear 25% of their responsibility, the landlord Is not responsible for Mr. Lee.
for three reasons lead to a tragedy
the judge said the case of fire damage Is caused by a common behavior for three reasons, namely boil water dIsinfection improper use of electrical equipment behavior, boil water and sterilize faulty electrical equipment unfinIshed property management responsibilities behavior.
on the Issue of the size of the degree of fault behavior between the three judges that the present case, the use of electrical appliances people are not doing their duty of Care ordinary people, not closed boil water dIsinfection after use unplug the device’s power or cut off the power supply and other measures, leading to hold water heating equipmentEnergized and in a state of continuous operation. Using human negligence, resulting in their own lives at rIsk, are heavier degree of fault, we should bear more responsibility, so use themselves should bear 50% of the responsibility.
Further, the present case, water heating equipment Is faulty, not to eliminate the danger of fire or abnormal operation of the standard mIshandling of the objective, a phase comparator, are relatively light degree fault, producers should bear 25 percent responsibility.
liability for property companies, the judge held that the property management company’s negligence Is the failure to standardize operations, delay in rescue and fire-fighting facilities of the property after the fire security personnel failed to play its due role , did not play the desired effect mitigation. However, the degree of severity of the fault analysIs, property management companies belonging to the degree of fault lighter fault, should bear 25 percent responsibility. (Intern Reporter Chen Jie Luo Yang correspondent Haifa VIsion / Wen Tao Mo / comic)