A woman was injured while trying to open the electric door of a residential complex and claimed 500,000 yuan from the property owner. The court said it would not support it.

The electric door of the community is slowly closing, and it is about to close. If you accelerate suddenly, it will not be a problem to pass through the gap – I believe many residents have had similar experiences, without swiping the access card or pressing the button. Press the door open button and follow the person or car in front of you to go out, but sometimes you try to save trouble and an accident occurs. Recently, the People\’s Court of Fangshan District, Beijing heard a case of \”passing through a crack in an electric door\”. The injured owner sued the property company for compensation of 500,000 yuan, but the court failed to support it.

The pedestrian passageway at the entrance of Ms. Wang’s community is equipped with an electric door. If you swipe the access card or press the door button, the door will automatically open and then close itself. On the afternoon of December 24, 2023, Ms. Wang went out to pick up her children from school on her electric bicycle as usual. It happened that the previous pedestrian had just walked out, and the electric door was open, but it had already begun to close.

Ms. Wang quickly turned the gear on the handlebar and prepared to speed up to pass, but she still missed and the wheel hit the closing electric door. Ms. Wang fell heavily from the car and injured her waist. After diagnosis, Ms. Wang suffered a waist fracture and multiple soft tissue contusions.

Ms. Wang was hospitalized for a week. After being discharged from the hospital, Ms. Wang sued the property company to the court, demanding compensation of approximately 500,000 yuan in medical expenses, nursing expenses and other losses. She believes that it was the property management company’s chaotic management, failure to install warning signs on the electric door, and the failure of the security guard to stop it in time that made her suffer this crime.

In court, the property company argued that it was entirely Ms. Wang’s luck that she tried to slip through the cracks. The electric door was in normal operation at the time. Ms. Wang rode out of the way while the electric door was closing, causing the accident. She should bear full responsibility for it. After Ms. Wang fell, the staff of the property management company immediately called an ambulance and sent Ms. Wang to the hospital for treatment. They had fulfilled their corresponding obligations. \”After Ms. Wang was discharged from the hospital, our staff visited her home. Ms. Wang wanted to negotiate compensation, but was rejected on the spot. We always insist that the incident has nothing to do with the property company.\” the property company said.

After trial, the court held that as a community owner and a person with full capacity for civil conduct, Ms. Wang was fully aware of the operation of the community gate and the safety risks of forcibly passing through, but she still did not get out of the car and took steps such as swiping the access card or pressing the door button. For normal operation, force the bicycle to pass through when the gate is already in the process of automatically closing. Ms. Wang was overconfident in walking through the cracks, which was the main reason for the incident. Ms. Wang was knocked down by the gate entirely due to her own improper behavior.The existing evidence is insufficient to prove that the property company failed to fulfill its safety management obligations or had subjective fault. Therefore, the court did not support Ms. Wang’s request for the property company to bear compensation liability.

Ms. Wang was dissatisfied with the first-instance judgment and filed an appeal. The court of second instance dismissed the appeal and upheld the original judgment.

The judge saidLaw

Article 1165 of the \”Civil Code of the People\’s Republic of China\” stipulates: \”If an actor infringes upon the civil rights and interests of others due to fault and causes damage, he shall bear tort liability.\” This article establishes that the general principle of liability for torts is the principle of fault liability.

To establish tort liability, four elements should generally be met: tortious behavior, fact of damage, causal relationship and subjective fault. In this case, the property company did not have any infringement or subjective fault. Ms. Wang was injured due to her own behavior and should bear the responsibility herself. The judiciary can sympathize with the weak, but will not encourage or protect behavior that violates public order and good customs.

Every adult with full capacity for civil conduct must be responsible for his or her own actions, not only for the actions he chooses, but also for the consequences of his actions. “The injured person is not necessarily justified.” The premise of justification is evidence, that is, there must be factual and legal basis.

This case reminds us that in daily life, we must not ignore the safety hazards we are accustomed to. \”Robbing\” often results in accidents, while \”waiting\” results in safety. After all, security is not a roll of the dice and cannot be left to chance and luck alone.