Cao Chun, a villager in a town, built a house for wang hong in the same village. Need to lift the roof and floor, pouring cement, wang hong hired Zhang Hua's crane to lift the floor. In order to stabilize the crane, pull a wire rope to fix the crane in the northeast corner, northwest corner and due south direction of the installed crane, in which a fixed wire rope in the due south direction passes through the east-west road surface in front of Wanghongmen, and the lowest point of the wire rope is 70 cm to 80 cm away from the road surface. At about 20 o'clock that night, villager Kelly rode his bicycle across the road in front of Wang Hong's house from east to west. While passing through the construction site, he tripped over the wire rope used to fix the crane, which caused Kelly to suffer head injury and left ear bleeding. Diagnosed by the hospital, Kelly suffered from an epidural hematoma in the left temporal roof and a fracture in the left middle skull base. Hospitalization for 45 days, medical expenses 1 1320. 15 yuan. Later, Kelly brought a lawsuit to the people's court on the grounds that wang hong only paid part of the medical expenses and failed to compensate all the economic losses, demanding that Zhang Hua, Cao Chun and wang hong compensate their medical expenses, lost time and nursing expenses.
There are different views on the responsibility of this case.
The first opinion is that Zhang Hua is the owner of the crane. When installing the crane, Wang Ke was injured because he did not set a safety sign on the fixed stay wire crossing the road, and he should take full responsibility for the personal injury. Neither wang hong nor Cao Chun is responsible.
The second opinion is that Zhang Hua, the owner of the crane, is directly responsible for Kelly's personal injury and should be liable for 70% of the personal injury compensation, while Cao Chun, as the organizer of construction and the commander of crane installation, should have foreseen in advance the problem that others may be injured when pulling the wire to cross the road, and failed to set up safety signs at the fixed pulling wire, and he is also responsible for Kelly's injury and should be liable for 30% of the compensation. Wang hong is not liable for compensation.
The third view is that Zhang Hua bears the main responsibility, wang hong and Cao Chun bear the secondary responsibility, and Kelly himself should bear a small part of the responsibility. The author agrees with the third opinion for the following reasons:
First of all, Article 125 of the General Principles of the Civil Law stipulates that the constructor shall bear civil liability for digging, repairing or installing underground facilities in public places, roadsides or passages without obvious signs and safety measures. In this case, Zhang Hua, as the constructor and the owner of the crane, should set safety signs on the fixed stay wires used to stabilize the crane crossing the road, but he did not set or take any safety measures, thinking that it could not pose a threat to the personal safety of passers-by, which led to the violation of Kelly's right to life and health. This fact is in line with the constitutive requirements in the General Principles of Civil Law that the builder should bear civil liability for infringement, that is, (1) Zhang Huazai is on the road. (2) Zhang Hua violated the duty of care by setting clear signs and taking safety measures. (3) Kelly did cause personal injury and property loss due to Zhang Hua's construction behavior. (4) There is a direct causal relationship between Zhang Hua's behavior of fixing the stay wire and the damage result of Kelly. Therefore, Kelly should have the right to compensate Zhang Hua in this case. Combined with the actual situation of this case, Zhang Hua should bear the main responsibility for the occurrence of the damage result, that is, compensate 50% of Kelly's economic losses.
Secondly, Cao Chun, as a builder of houses, cooperated with Zhang Hua, who was employed by wang hong, but not with Zhang Hua. However, Cao Chun can't prove his innocence and should be ordered to bear civil liability. Because in the process of construction, they are a coordinated and inseparable whole. As the head of the construction organization, Cao Chun is the organizer and commander of the whole construction process, and should be responsible for engineering technology, engineering quality, installation and scheduling of construction machinery and configuration of safety facilities. Wang hong rented Zhang Hua's crane, and Cao Chun chose the location of the crane and used it in the actual construction, which should be regarded as acquiescence to wang hong's renting of the crane. However, when installing the crane, Cao Chun did not pay enough attention to pulling the crane wire rope across the road and fixing it. He thought that the construction time was short and there were construction workers on site, which would not cause damage. Therefore, it failed to set signs on the fixed wire rope, nor did it take any safety precautions, nor did it fulfill its obligation to remind Zhang Hua of the behavior of setting wire rope, which caused personal injury to Kelly. Therefore, in this case, Kelly has the right to demand Cao Chun to bear the liability for compensation. In combination with the actual situation of this case, Cao Chun should bear secondary responsibility for the occurrence of damage results, that is, compensate Kelly for 20% of economic losses.
Third, wang hong built his own house, and rented Zhang Hua's crane to lift the floor according to the needs of the building. In the installation and use of rented construction machinery and equipment, unsafe factors are found, and suggestions should be made or necessary safety measures should be taken. However, wang hong thought that it was impossible to have an accident during the construction in front of his house, and failed to fulfill the obligation of reminding, which led to the occurrence of damage results. Therefore, in this case, Kelly also has the right to demand wang hong to bear the liability for compensation. According to the actual situation of this case, wang hong should bear secondary responsibility for the damage, that is, compensate 20% of Kelly's economic losses.
Fourth, according to Article 98 of the General Principles of Civil Law of People's Republic of China (PRC), citizens have the right to health. Have the right to obtain compensation for physical damage, that is, according to the provisions of Article 119 of the General Principles of Civil Law of People's Republic of China (PRC) and the General Principles of Civil Law of People's Republic of China (PRC), those who infringe on citizens' bodies and cause harm shall compensate for medical expenses, income reduced due to missed work, living allowance for the disabled and other expenses; If death is caused, the funeral expenses and the necessary living expenses of the people raised by the deceased shall be paid. Kelly is entitled to compensation. However, Kelly, as a person with full capacity for civil conduct, has the ability of independent observation and judgment. He should observe the construction environment through the construction site, and also be alert and pay attention. However, due to its carelessness and too fast cycling speed, it should also bear the corresponding responsibility, that is, 10% responsibility.
Fifth, the second paragraph of Article 116 of the General Principles of the Civil Law of People's Republic of China (PRC) stipulates that citizens and legal persons who infringe on the property of the state or the collective or the property or person of others due to their faults shall bear civil liability. In this case, Zhang Hua, Cao Chun and Wang Hong were at fault for Kelly's health and should bear civil liability according to their responsibilities. According to the provisions of Article 130 of the General Principles of Civil Law of People's Republic of China (PRC) and General Principles of Civil Law of People's Republic of China (PRC), if two or more people infringe upon and cause damage to others, they shall be jointly and severally liable for compensation. Therefore, Zhang Hua, Cao Chun and Wang Hong should be jointly and severally liable for compensation.
Note: The court made the judgment according to the above opinions and the provisions of the General Principles of Civil Law. After the judgment, all parties accepted the interest judgment lawsuit, and fulfilled the payment obligation in time according to the judgment result, which achieved good legal and social effects. (The characters in the text are all pseudonyms)