new liability regulations for high-altitude objects thrown: if the infringer cannot be identified, the building manager who failed to take necessary security measures will be held liable first
2024-09-27
한어Русский языкEnglishFrançaisIndonesianSanskrit日本語DeutschPortuguêsΕλληνικάespañolItalianoSuomalainenLatina
the supreme people's court issued a judicial interpretation to further stipulate the tort liability of high-altitude throwing objects.
on september 26, the supreme people's court officially issued the "interpretation (1) of the supreme people's court on the application of the tort liability section of the civil code of the people's republic of china" (hereinafter referred to as the "interpretation"), which will come into effect on september 27, 2024. .
tort liability is the legal consequence that should be borne by infringement of civil rights and interests. bearing tort liability is also an important means to sanction illegal acts, relieve rights and interests, and protect human rights. the paper has noticed that on the basis of the civil code’s provisions on liability for damage caused by objects thrown from high altitudes and falling objects, the aforementioned “interpretation” clarifies two articles to further provide for tort liability: if the specific infringer of objects thrown from high altitudes cannot be identified, the necessary safety measures have not been taken. the building manager responsible for the safeguard measures takes the lead.
"article 1254 of the civil code regulates liability for damage caused by objects thrown and falling objects from high altitudes from five aspects." the person in charge of the first civil tribunal of the supreme people's court said that in practice, there are some disputes over the coordinated application of relevant provisions. what is more prominent is the order of responsibilities and compensation issues between building managers such as property service companies and building users who may cause harm.
to this end, the supreme people's court, on the basis of summarizing the trial experience of the "chongqing ashtray case" and "jinan cutting board case", has made relevant provisions in articles 24 and 25 of the "interpretation", striving to make the legal provisions of the civil code applicable in judicial practice. implemented in practice. for example, it is clearly stipulated that if objects thrown or falling from high altitude cause damage to others, the specific infringer shall be the first party to be held liable, and property service companies that fail to take necessary safety measures shall bear the subsequent supplementary liability.
the paper noted that in accordance with article 1254, paragraph 1, of the civil code, if objects are thrown from a building or objects fall from a building and cause damage to others, the infringer shall bear tort liability in accordance with the law. at the same time, paragraph 2 of this article stipulates that building managers such as property service companies shall take necessary safety measures to prevent damage to others caused by objects thrown and dropped from high altitudes. violations of this obligation shall bear tort liability in accordance with the law.
“when specific infringers and building managers such as property service companies that violate safety guarantee obligations are co-defendants, how to define and divide the civil liability between the two responsible subjects is not clear in article 1254 of the civil code.” the aforementioned responsibility people say that article 24 of the "interpretation" clarifies this, that is, the specific infringer is the first responsible party, and property service companies and other building managers who fail to take necessary safety measures can legally enforce the property of the specific infringer in the people's court. to the extent that it is still unable to perform after execution, it shall bear supplementary liability corresponding to its fault.
in addition, the aforementioned "interpretation" also makes it clear that if the specific tortfeasor caused by objects thrown or falling from heights cannot be identified, building managers such as property service companies who have not taken necessary safety measures shall first bear the liability corresponding to their fault. the damage to the remaining parts of the infringed party shall be appropriately compensated by the user of the building who may have caused the infringement. the above-mentioned responsible parties have the right to seek compensation from specific infringers determined in the future after assuming responsibility.
"in trial practice, it is sometimes difficult to determine the specific infringer who caused harm caused by objects thrown or falling from heights. in this case, there is a dispute between the user of the building who may have caused the harm and the property service company and other building managers who violated the safety and security obligations. article 1254 of the civil code is not clear on how to divide responsibilities.” the aforementioned person in charge stated that article 25 of the “interpretation” clarifies this: first, there is no need to wait for the specific infringer to be identified during the lawsuit; second, necessary measures have not been taken. building managers such as property service companies who take safety measures shall bear responsibility before building users who may cause harm. the scope of liability should be commensurate with the degree of its fault; thirdly, after the building manager such as the property service company assumes responsibility, if the infringed party still has damages that have not been compensated, the remaining damage of the infringed party will be borne by the building that may have caused the infringement. appropriate compensation shall be provided to the user of the property. fourth, it is clarified that property service companies and building users who may cause harm have the right to recover compensation from specific infringers after assuming responsibility. fifth, clarify the time standard when “the specific infringer is difficult to determine”. article 25 of the interpretation stipulates that if, after investigation by public security and other organs, it is still difficult to identify the specific infringer before the conclusion of the first-instance court debate in a civil case, the people's court may hear the relevant case in accordance with the law and determine the civil liability of the relevant responsible party.
the paper reporter lin ping
(this article is from the paper. for more original information, please download the “the paper” app)
