Ah Qiang, a migrant worker, died of carbon monoxide poisoning in the dormitory rented by his employer, and Ah Qiang's parents sued his employer and landlord for nearly one million yuan. Who is responsible for Ah Qiang's death? The case has recently been settled.
Poisoning deaths trigger lawsuits for claims
The man, Ah Qiang, is a native of Liucheng County, working in Liuzhou City, employed by Xiong and Wei, and living in a staff dormitory rented by his employer.
In the early morning of April 20, 2021, Ah Qiang returned to the staff dormitory to rest. At about 8:00 a.m. that day, the workers found Ah Qiang lying on his back in the bathroom. After 120 on-site rescue was ineffective, Ah Qiang unfortunately died. Identification showed that Ah Qiang died of carbon monoxide poisoning.
It is understood that the staff dormitory was rented by Xiong to the owner Tang, and the contract agreed that the lease period was from March 1, 2021 to March 1, 2022. There is a clause in the contract that clearly states: "All losses caused by fire, electricity, gas disasters and other unnatural disasters caused by careless use of fire or improper use shall be borne by Xiong." ”
After Ah Qiang's death, Xiong paid 60,000 yuan to his relatives. However, Ah Qiang's parents believed that the employer Xiong X, Wei X and the landlord Tang X should bear full responsibility for Ah Qiang's death, so they filed a lawsuit with the Liubei District People's Court, requesting that Xiong X, Wei X and Tang X be ordered to jointly compensate for economic losses such as rescue medical expenses, death compensation, funeral expenses, living expenses of dependents, mental losses, and appraisal fees totaling more than 982,000 yuan.
Employers are held responsible for 30% for negligence
The court of first instance held that
“
Xiong X and Wei X, as employers, rented houses for Ah Qiang and other employees for accommodation, and were obliged to ensure safe use, but they neglected management and precautions, and the court decided that their proportion of responsibility was 30%.
When Tang rented the house to Xiong, the rental house involved in the case was not installed with a gas water heater, and there was no evidence to prove that she knew that a gas water heater was installed in the rental house before the accident occurred, and the accident occurred less than two months after the house began to be rented, requiring the house lessor to carry out a safety inspection of the rental house in a short period of time was too harsh, so Tang had no obvious fault for Ah Qiang's accidental death and should not be held responsible.
The deceased Ah Qiang is a person with full capacity for civil conduct who has reached the age of 18, and has the basic obligation to confirm whether his work and rest environment is safe, and according to the witness Zheng, the gas water heater involved in the case was personally installed by Ah Qiang himself. Cuong bears unshirkable primary responsibility for his own death, and the court has decided that his proportion of responsibility is 70%.
(Source: Visual China)
The court of second instance upheld the first-instance judgment
After trial, the Liubei Court rendered a first-instance judgment on the case:
Xiong X and Wei X should compensate Ah Qiang's parents for 30% of the six expenses of death compensation, funeral expenses, living expenses of dependents, judicial appraisal fees, testing fees, and rescue medical expenses, totaling more than 225,000 yuan. In addition, although he was mainly responsible for Ah Qiang's accidental death, he still caused great mental harm to his parents, and the court decided that the consolation payment for mental damage was 15,000 yuan. Deducting the 60,000 yuan that Xiong has already paid before, Xiong and Wei should also compensate Ah Qiang's parents for more than 180,000 yuan.
After the first-instance judgment was pronounced, Ah Qiang's parents were not satisfied and appealed to the Liuzhou Intermediate People's Court. The Liuzhou Intermediate People's Court held that the first-instance judgment found that the facts were clear and the law was applied accurately. Recently, the court made a final judgment upholding the original judgment.
About rental house fires
How do you distinguish between the responsibility of the landlord and the responsibility of the tenant?
Here are a few cases
↓
Case 1: The tenant is fully responsible
Li rented Mr. Wang's house, the use of high-power electrical appliances during the rental period caused the fuse to fuse, after which Li used copper wire instead of fuses to continue to use high-power electrical appliances, and finally led to the occurrence of fire, the fire spread to the neighbor's home, resulting in furniture and home appliances all burned out.
The court in this case held that when Li leased the house, he should properly use the rental house and use the circuit safely to avoid damage to his own property and the property of others.
The owner of the house, Li Mou, replaced the fuse with a copper wire, making the fuse unable to play a protective role, which was the main cause of the fire caused by the short circuit of the wire, and should bear full compensation for the damage to the property of the neighbor.
Case 2: The tenant is mainly responsible, and the landlord is jointly and severally liable
A landlord rents the house to someone else, and during the tenant's rent, the house caught fire, causing heavy losses to the tenant and neighbors. It was found that the fire was caused by the tenant's cooking, but the landlord piled a large number of flammable items such as cartons on the balcony, which accelerated the spread of the fire and burned the neighbor's property.
After the final judgment of the court of two trials, the landlord bears 20% of the fault responsibility and the tenant bears 80% of the responsibility.
Case 3: The landlord is fully responsible
Mr. Liu rented a room for Mr. Zhang, and when Mr. Liu was working, there was a fire in his home, which not only burned his belongings, but also affected the neighbors.
After investigation, the fire department determined that the fire was caused by the aging of the line, and the court also ruled that the landlord Mr. Zhang was liable for compensation for the losses caused by the fire according to the fire determination. When the two parties signed the contract, they did not agree on who was responsible for the inspection and maintenance of the house during the rental period, so it was natural to be regarded as the lessor of the house, that is, Mr. Zhang.
According to the relevant provisions of the Measures for the Administration of Commodity Housing Leasing, the lessor shall regularly inspect and repair the house so that the house is in a normal state of use, and the lessor shall bear the liability for compensation for any personal injury and property loss caused by the failure to repair the house in time.
Three rental house fire cases are available from above
Analysis yields
As a landlord
Before renting a house to the tenant, it is necessary to carry out daily management of the fire fighting facilities and equipment in the rental house, if the rental house wants to change the use function and structure, it should meet the fire safety requirements, and the fire hazard shall be eliminated in time or the tenant shall be notified to eliminate it.
As a tenant
It is necessary to use the house safely and eliminate hidden dangers in time. In order to avoid disputes, the two parties to the lease can state the responsibilities of both parties in the rental contract, carefully check the safety of the relevant facilities before moving in, and do a good job of handover.
Fire "Blue Friends" warm reminder:
Whether you are a landlord or a tenant
Learn about fire safety regularly
Cure the fire before it occurs
It is the right way on earth