Who should be held responsible for injuries caused by electric gates in residential areas? Court ruling: The property owner should bear 70% liability for compensation

Video loading…

Cover News Reporter Dai Zhuxin

Many residential areas are now equipped with electric doors. If you swipe the owner\’s card or the doorman\’s control at the sensor, the electric door will open and close again after people leave. Ms. Xie, who lives in a community in Pengshan, was knocked to the ground by the closing electric door because she was talking to the doorman and failed to leave in time when passing the electric gate of the community. She suffered a tenth degree of disability.

Does the owner pay for his \”stay\”, or does the property owner pay for the injurious electric door? On November 11, reporters learned from the Sichuan Provincial Higher People’s Court. Recently, the Pengshan District Court in Meishan, Sichuan held a public hearing on the electric door injury case.

The electric door caused tenth-level disability to the owner of the community

The owner claimed 150,000 from the property owner

In March 2017, Ms. Xie purchased a house in a community in Pengshan and signed a property service agreement with the property company. In early 2020, at 6:30 in the morning, Ms. Xie rode an electric bicycle to work at the company. When she passed the non-motorcycle gate of the community, she was knocked to the ground by the remote-controlled electronic door. Ms. Xie was sent to a local hospital for treatment and was diagnosed with multiple fractures, meniscus tears, and ligament contusions. The 14 days of hospitalization cost her more than 25,000 yuan in treatment costs. After being discharged from the hospital, the doctor ordered me to rest for half a year. According to the appraisal by the Forensic Appraisal Center, Ms. Xie\’s disability level is level 10.

Ms.

In court, Ms. Xie said that the electric door was newly installed in the community at that time. When she passed the south gate gate, she was asking the community guard about how to open the electric door. The electric door suddenly bounced back on its own. Unprepared, she fell to the ground. Ms. Xie also produced a video of the incident in court.

Judging from the video, Ms. Xie had a brief conversation with the community gatekeeper while riding her bicycle through the electric gate. During the conversation, Ms. Xie was riding on the car and stopped right in the middle of the open electric door. The electric door began to close backwards after a few seconds. Although the speed was not fast, Ms. Xie was in the middle and could not avoid it in time and was knocked over and fell to the ground.

The property company argued that the electric door of the community was automatic and did not bounce back suddenly. It was caused by the delay in Ms. Xie\’s failure to pass through in time when the community service staff opened the electric door of the community. There is a certain time interval for the electric door to bounce back. As the owner of the community, Ms. Xie knew it. Therefore, Ms. Xie should bear the main responsibility for this accident. The amount of compensation she requested was too high.

The court ruled

The property shall bear 70% liability for compensation

The court found that the electric door system of the non-motor vehicle gate of the community It is opened remotely by the property staff (doorman), and then automatically snaps back off after a certain period of time. During the rebound process, the doorman can remotely open it again.

The court held that citizens enjoy the right to life and health, and those who infringe upon their bodies and cause harm should bear civil liability for compensation. In this case, the defendant, as the property service provider of the community, arranged for property staff to control the entry and exit of people and vehicles at the entrance of the community, and was obliged to ensure the safety of people entering and exiting and vehicles.

When Ms. Xie drove her two-wheeled electric bicycle out of the community, although the electric door was opened, when she did not leave immediately, the property staff, as professionals and right beside Ms. He opened the rebounded electric door again in time, causing the plaintiff to be knocked down and injured by the rebound of the electric door. He was at fault and failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove that he was not at fault. He should be liable for compensation for Ms. Xie\’s losses.

On the other hand, as the owner of the community and a person with full capacity for civil conduct, Ms. Xie lacked safety awareness and failed to drive away in time when the electric door was opened, causing her to be knocked down and injured by the rebounding electric door. , you should also bear certain fault liability for the harm you cause.

After comprehensive consideration of the degree of fault of both parties, the court determined that the defendant property company should bear 70% liability for the plaintiff Ms. Xie’s losses. The court ruled that Property Services should compensate Ms. Xie for various losses totaling 93,300 yuan.

Nie Jing, the judge in charge of the case, said that the occurrence of this case reminded property companies to pay attention to strengthening the training of security personnel and doormen, improve their safety awareness, and try their best to protect the safety of community owners; at the same time, it also The owners of the community are reminded that when passing similar electric gates, they should leave in time and do not stay to avoid unnecessary harm.

[If you have news clues, please report them to us. Once adopted, we will be rewarded. Report information