news

한어Русский языкEnglishFrançaisIndonesianSanskrit日本語DeutschPortuguêsΕλληνικάespañolItalianoSuomalainenLatina

a careless parent took his child out and the child was playing with his mobile phone. unfortunately, the child fell from the escalator. who should be held responsible?

on september 26, a reporter from the paper (www.thepaper.cn) learned from the jinshan district people's court of shanghai (hereinafter referred to as the shanghai jinshan court) that the court had recently concluded a case involving a dispute over the right to life, physical integrity, and health.

the court said that in april 2021, ms. chen brought her three-year-old child liangliang (pseudonym) to the mall for shopping. near the entrance of the escalator on the third floor, ms. chen stood about 2-3 meters away from liangliang and looked down at her phone. liangliang came to the entrance of the escalator out of curiosity and touched the handrail with his hand before returning. ms. chen looked up and saw liangliang's actions, but after seeing liangliang return, she continued to stand there and look at her phone.

afterwards, liangliang came to the escalator entrance again and grabbed the handrail with both hands from the outside of the handrail. his body was immediately lifted up by the upward handrail. after passing through the gap between the handrail and the surrounding railings, he fell to the first floor at the third stairwell and fell into a coma on the spot.

the judicial appraisal center was commissioned to appraise liangliang's disability level and subsequent treatment and nursing dependence. the appraisal opinion was that liangliang suffered severe craniocerebral injury due to a fall from a high place, and now has quadriplegia (muscle strength below level 3), bowel and bladder dysfunction, etc., and was assessed as a first-level disability. after the disability assessment, he still needs complete nursing dependence, and still needs bowel and urination care and supplies (such as disposable diapers) in the future. he needs long-term systemic anti-epileptic drug treatment, measures and supplies to prevent limb contractures, as well as respiratory management, infection prevention and regular review.

liangliang's mother, ms. chen, believed that the shopping mall in question did not install sufficient guardrails at the escalator on the third floor and failed to fulfill its safety obligations, so she sued the mall in court and demanded that it bear liability for compensation.

the mall involved argued that the accident occurred because liangliang deliberately climbed the handrail and liangliang's mother, ms. chen, failed to fulfill her guardianship responsibilities. the escalator itself did not have any quality problems or safety hazards. the mall also provided sufficient safety warnings on the escalator and adjacent areas, and fulfilled its timely rescue obligations after the accident. the mall has fulfilled its safety guarantee obligations within a reasonable limit, so it should not bear compensation liability.

the shanghai jinshan court stated that the focus of the dispute in this case is whether the shopping mall has fulfilled its safety obligations and the proportion of liability it should bear.

after trial, the court held that the shopping mall in question, as a commercial public place integrating shopping, dining and entertainment, has a safety guarantee obligation for consumers within the place and should ensure that special equipment such as escalators and protective measures within the business premises meet national safety standards; for the most serious accidents that may result in casualties, more cautious prevention and management responsibilities should be performed to ensure that the facilities within the business premises meet or even exceed the minimum safety standards required by existing laws and regulations.

after on-site inspection, the escalator involved in the case is located on the third floor of the mall. there is a metal railing between the escalator and the wall. the stairwell from the third floor to the first floor is about 7 cm away from the railing, which poses a risk of people falling. for this dangerous area, the mall involved did not install a fixed blocking device in accordance with the "safety specifications for the manufacture and installation of escalators and moving walkways" to effectively isolate the stairwell with a risk of falling. therefore, its safety protection requirements do not meet the national mandatory standards, which is causally related to liang liang's fall and serious injury. the mall involved should be deemed to have failed to fulfill its safety protection obligations and should bear the liability for compensation for the damages suffered by liang liang.

in addition, as the guardians of their minor children, parents should earnestly perform their guardianship duties, promptly discover and stop children's dangerous behaviors, and if the child is injured due to the guardian's poor care, the guardian should be held responsible for the consequences of the damage. at the time of the incident, liangliang was only 3 years old. as liangliang's mother, ms. chen brought a person with no civil capacity to a relatively crowded and complex place, and should have been more cautious and meticulous in protecting her child's life safety.

the operation of the escalator itself is dangerous. ms. chen brought liang liang to the vicinity of the escalator and should have carefully watched and controlled liang liang to prevent him from getting close to the escalator equipment and other dangerous sources. however, when the incident happened, ms. chen did not pay attention to liang liang touching the handrail and continued to look down at her phone. she failed to fulfill her prudent duty of care and was at fault for the occurrence of the damage. the compensation liability of the mall involved should be reduced.

for ordinary consumers who lack relevant industry knowledge, although they can foresee that escalators are dangerous, they are unable to foresee the danger of falling and the serious consequences that may be caused by the guardrail facilities at the escalator involved. as the manager of a large business place, the mall involved has the knowledge and management ability of relevant industry management and should reasonably foresee that the guardrail facilities at the entrance and exit of the escalator do not meet the national mandatory standards and there is a risk of people falling. therefore, the fault of the mall involved is more serious than the fault of ms. chen, liangliang's mother, for failing to supervise her.

in summary, the court determined that the mall in question should bear 70% of the compensation liability for liang liang’s damages based on the degree of fault of both parties and the causal force of the tort on the damages. the court then ordered the defendant, the mall in question, to compensate the plaintiff liang liang for more than 1.54 million yuan.

after the case was appealed, the second instance upheld the original verdict.