& shy; These days, the “Beijing Heyi Hotel Women’s attack incident” continued to ferment on the Internet, triggering heated discussion among netizens. While netizens are generally concerned that Rujia group has made N fatal mistakes in public relations, every citizen who has the demand of going out to consume is also thinking about what kind of legal responsibilities merchants should bear in similar events.
& shy; In case of similar accidental injuries, can customers claim compensation from merchants? How much compensation responsibility do merchants have to bear? In this regard, the interpretation of this issue selects two typical cases recently pronounced by our provincial courts, hoping to enlighten everyone.
& shy; Case 1:
& shy; Female customer falling down for elevator sudden stop disabled
& shy; Court: responsible for accidents caused by improper operation of the mall
& shy; On the morning of November 28, 2014, when Ms. Deng went to the RT-MART shopping mall operated by Xiamen runrui Commercial Co., Ltd (hereinafter referred to as “runrui Company”), due to improper operation of the mall staff, it caused the running elevator she was riding to stop suddenly. Ms. Deng was defenseless and fell down and was injured on the spot.
& shy; After the incident, Ms. Deng went to several hospitals in Xiamen for treatment, and was diagnosed as right-hand radial fracture with ulna styloid fracture. During this period, RT-MART shopping mall paid 1000 yuan for her medical expenses.
& shy; Since then, due to the failure of negotiation on compensation, Ms. Deng took runrui company to court in the second half of last year and demanded compensation for the loss.
& shy; During the litigation process, Xiamen Siming District Court entrusted an authentication agency to identify Ms. Deng’s injury.
& shy; The identification result is that her disability level is grade 10, the nursing period is assessed as 60 days, and the nutrition period is assessed as 60 days.
& shy; Recently, the siming district court held that runrui company, as the operator of the shopping mall, failed to fulfill the security guarantee obligation of the manager, causing ms. deng to be disabled, and should bear all tort liability for the damage consequences according to law. At present, the economic losses such as medical expenses, nursing expenses, nutrition expenses, transportation expenses, disability compensation and appraisal expenses claimed by Ms. Zheng are reasonable and legal, but the specific amount should be subject to 86512.91 yuan determined by the court. In addition, she was injured in this accident and caused 10-level disability. She decided that her mental injury solatium was 8,000 yuan.
& shy; Based on the above opinions, runrui company should compensate Ms. Deng for the total losses of 94512.91 yuan, deduct the paid 1000 yuan, and also compensate 93512.91 yuan.
& shy; Case 2:
& shy; Passengers were seriously injured in the explosion when taking the bus.
& shy; The bus company was awarded a compensation of 1.17 million yuan
& shy; On the afternoon of June 7, 2013, Ms Li, who worked in a logistics company, took the bus of Xiamen bus rapid transit operation Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Bus Company”). When arriving near Kanayama station in Xiamen, the bus exploded because others set fire. Ms. Li was severely burned and immediately sent to the hospital. She was hospitalized for 180 days before and after, and spent more than 740,000 yuan on medical expenses. After that, she had to carry out a series of follow-up treatments.
& shy; Last year, she took the bus company to court and asked the other party to compensate for all her losses.
& shy; The bus company argued that the explosion involved in this case was a mass incident caused by man-made arson, which caused casualties and unfortunate consequences of vehicle burning. The bus company was also the victim of this case. Bus companies are willing to compensate Ms. Li for reasonable losses within the legal framework.
& shy; The Siming district court of Xiamen city recently heard that Ms. Li took the express bus and the bus company charged the fee, and both parties formed a legal and effective transportation contract. The bus company has the obligation to transport her safely to the agreed place during transportation. However, due to an accident in the process of taking the bus, she was severely burned. Because the bus company failed to fulfill the obligation of safety guarantee, it had already constituted a breach of contract, and she should be liable for the breach of contract to compensate ms. li for her loss.
& shy; After calculation, the bus company should compensate Ms. Li for the losses including transportation expenses, disability compensation, follow-up treatment expenses, hospitalization food subsidies, nursing expenses, lost work expenses, dependent living expenses, nutrition expenses, property loss, etc., amounted to more than 1.17 million yuan. The deduction of the amount that Ms. Li borrowed from the bus company was more than 40,000 yuan, which was more than 1.12 million yuan. The bus company shall pay more than 1.12 million yuan of the above personal injury compensation to Ms. Li within 10 days from the effective date of the judgment.
& shy; Case 3:
& shy; Man went downstairs after drinking and slipped fracture
& shy; The restaurant failed to clean up the stair brewing accident in time, and was responsible for 70%
& shy; On the evening of March 15, 2014, Mr. Lin and his friends Mr. Wang, Mr. Yu and others went to the balcony on the second floor of a restaurant in Shaowu city for dinner. After finishing the meal at about 8 o’clock that night, Mr. Lin and Mr. Yu went downstairs first, and they chatted while walking. Because of the oil and water on the steps, Mr. Lin slipped and fell on the ground. Later, he was sent to the hospital for first aid and hospitalized. He was admitted to the hospital for diagnosis: right patella fracture.
& shy; On the 25th of that month, he had an operation under anesthesia and the operation went smoothly. Mr. Lin was hospitalized for 56 days and spent more than 20,000 yuan on medical expenses.
& shy; Mr. Lin is not satisfied with the handling attitude of Ms. Wu, the restaurant operator.
& shy; According to his introduction, after 10 o’clock on the night of the incident, Ms. Wu went to the hospital to visit him. Soon, ms. wu said that the child in the family was small and could not stay much. He left in a hurry before mr. lin finished the hospitalization procedures, without paying medical expenses or any indication of responsibility. The next morning, Ms. Wu took an employee to the ward to visit and then left.
& shy; Mr. Lin called Ms. Wu many times to negotiate with him about hospitalization expenses. At the beginning, the other party made it clear that he would not pay for hospitalization and surgery, and asked him to discuss compensation after treatment. After that, she simply stopped answering Mr. Lin’s phone.
& shy; In August, 2014, the judicial authentication center confirmed that Mr. Lin had left sequela due to the injury of the right patella, which was rated as grade 10 disability.
& shy; Mr. Lin once called 12315 to appeal. Under the auspices of Shaowu Consumer Council, the two sides conducted a preliminary mediation, but failed. Under this circumstance, Mr. Lin took the restaurant to court in the second half of last year and asked him to compensate for the losses of more than 120,000 yuan.
& shy; In the trial, the restaurant side argued that according to the actual situation of mr. lin’s fall, Yogueta was slipping, and it should be falling back instead of rolling down the stairs. And it was because he fell down the stairs only when he went downstairs and stepped on the empty under the condition of heavy drinking, so the responsibility for his fall was himself. There are carpets on the stairs of the restaurant, and “Caution Slippery” signs are placed at the corners of the stairs and the corners of the stairs and the ground. The restaurant has fulfilled the corresponding security obligations, there is no fault such as imperfect facilities or neglect of protection.
& shy; In addition, the companions who drink together with Mr. Lin have the obligation to pay attention to each other. It can be seen from the menu of the day that 8 people such as Mr. Lin drank two boxes of beer and several bottles of Ningxia Red, which far exceeded the tolerance of normal people. Mr. Lin was limited in his actions due to excessive drinking. He went downstairs to step on the air and fell down. The responsibility was entirely on himself.
& shy; Shaowu city court recently held that according to the provisions of the Tort Liability Law, Mr. Lin fell down and was injured while going down the stairs after the restaurant’s meal, should bear the corresponding responsibility according to the fault of both parties.
& shy; In this case, the restaurant should provide necessary security for customers, but it is not equipped with necessary material security, such as not equipped with anti-skid floor mats, placing anti-skid warning sign, etc, and in the case of oil and water on the stair surface, it was not cleaned up in time, resulting in Mr. Lin stepping on the oil water and falling down and getting injured. The restaurant did not fulfill the safety guarantee obligation within the reasonable scope, and should be liable for compensation for the damage to Mr. Lin.
& shy; Stairs have slope, which is different from walking on flat ground, and people need to be more cautious. However, when mr. lin chatted with others in the process of going down the stairs, his attention would inevitably be scattered into the conversation, but he did not notice the condition under his feet as carefully as possible. He fell down and got injured when stepping on the oil and water on the ladder, it has a certain fault for the occurrence of the damage result, which can appropriately reduce the compensation liability of the restaurant. According to the actual situation of this case, the court decided that the restaurant should bear 70% of the loss of Mr. Lin.
& shy; According to this, the court ordered the restaurant to compensate Mr. Lin for various losses of more than 60,000 yuan.
& shy; □ lawyer’s statement
& shy; Merchants who fail to fulfill their security obligations shall be liable for compensation.
& shy; Chen jie, deputy director lawyer of fujian law firm, believes that in recent years, many citizens have suffered damage in accommodation, catering, entertainment and other business places or other social activity places, this caused a series of compensation problems.
& shy; To this end, the law has set up a legal obligation for operators-security obligation.
& shy; This obligation specifically refers to the safety guarantee obligation undertaken by the operator in the business place to consumers, potential consumers or other people entering the service place according to law. The content of guarantee includes personal and property safety.
& shy; The subject of its obligation is the operator of the service place, including the owner, manager and contractor of the service place, who have legal security obligations to the place, or citizens with de facto control, legal persons or other social organizations.
& shy; The first paragraph of article 6 of the supreme people’s court’s interpretation on several issues concerning the application of law in hearing cases of personal injury compensation clearly stipulates: “engaging in accommodation, catering, natural persons, legal persons and other organizations engaged in business activities such as entertainment or other social activities fail to fulfill their security obligations within reasonable limits, causing personal injury to others, the People’s Court shall support compensation rights holders who request them to bear corresponding compensation responsibilities.”
& shy; The law on the protection of consumers’ rights and interests also stipulates: “Consumers have the right to not damage their personal and property when purchasing goods and receiving services. Consumers have the right to require the goods and services provided by operators to meet the requirements of ensuring personal and property safety.”
& shy; Generally speaking, there are three main types of operators violating their security obligations.
& shy; First, the service provided by the operator itself or the hardware equipment is not safe, resulting in customer damage.
& shy; Second, the consumption environment created by operators is unsafe.
& shy; The third is the negative inaction of the operator, failing to diligently fulfill the obligation of preventing and stopping illegal infringement, and causing the client to suffer due to the infringement of the third party.
& shy; The tort liability of the security obligor is all fault liability, and the tort liability is assumed only when the occurrence of the damage is at fault. Both direct liability and supplementary liability are based on fault.
& shy; If the security obligor fails to fulfill the security obligation to “directly cause” personal injury to others, it shall bear direct responsibility.
& shy; Need to explain as follows: the operator’s obligations are limited, if it has fulfilled the “reasonable” duty of care, then there is no responsibility; the identification standard depends on whether its behavior meets the requirements of laws, regulations, rules or operating procedures, and whether it meets the degree of caution that an honest and kind practitioner should possess.
& shy; The forms of breach of obligations by security agents can be roughly divided into two categories: first, there are defects or flaws in equipment, facilities and places, which do not meet the requirements of security; Second, failure to fulfill the duty of care in operation or management activities has defects in management or service.
& shy; For example, when the hotel is decorated, remove the railings outside the balcony of the room without warning signs; The restaurant floor is too slippery and the aisle lights are too dim; The entertainment facilities of the playground are not regularly inspected and maintained.
& shy; In addition, if the third party’s behavior causes damage to others, the third party shall bear the tort liability. Only on the premise that the third party cannot be determined or unable to compensate, if the administrator or organizer fails to fulfill the obligation of security, he shall bear the corresponding supplementary responsibility. (Reporter Chen H & X)