If I was injured while trying to grab a closed electric door, will I be able to claim compensation from the property owner? Beijing Fangshan District Court: Property compensation has no legal basis

The electric door of the community was slowly closing, and when it was about to close, Ms. Wang accelerated quickly and tried to pass through the gap, but an accident happened. Recently, the People\’s Court of Fangshan District, Beijing heard a case of compensation for injuries caused by an electric door robbery. The injured owner sued the property company for compensation, but the court failed to support it.

Ms. Wang lives in a community, and the pedestrian passage at the entrance of the community is equipped with an electric door. Swipe the access card or press the door button, and 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 walked out and the electric door was open, but it was beginning to close. Ms. Wang was about to speed up to pass, but she still missed. The wheel hit the closing electric door, and Ms. Wang fell from the car. Come down. After diagnosis, Ms. Wang suffered a waist fracture and multiple soft tissue contusions.

A week after being hospitalized, Ms. Wang sued the property company to the court, demanding compensation of 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 doors, and the security guards\’ failure to stop them in time that made them suffer.

In court, the property company argued that it was entirely Ms. Wang\’s own luck and she tried to get through the crack in the door. The electric door was in normal operation at that time. Ms. Wang jumped out of the way and rode out while the electric door was closing, causing the accident. She should bear all the responsibility herself. After Ms. Wang fell, the staff of the property management company immediately called an ambulance and sent her to the hospital for treatment. They had fulfilled their corresponding obligations.

After the 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 did not get out of the car and resorted to swiping the access control. Regular operations such as carding or pressing the door opening button, and forcing a bicycle to pass through the door when it is already in the process of automatically closing. Ms. Wang\’s overconfidence in walking through the cracks was the main reason for the incident. Ms. Wang was knocked down by the door completelyDue to its own improper behavior, the existing evidence is insufficient to prove that the property management 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.

　(Wang Hui)

■The judge’s statement■

Article 1165 of the Civil Code stipulates that if an actor infringes upon the civil rights and interests of others due to negligence 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 prerequisite for being justified 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.

Source: China Court Network