A 17-year-old boy drowned by washing his feet in the stream. His parents claimed 380000 Yuan from the town government and other four units. The judgment came!

category:Global
 A 17-year-old boy drowned by washing his feet in the stream. His parents claimed 380000 Yuan from the town government and other four units. The judgment came!


On the evening of July 16, 2019, a 17-year-old secondary school student in Lishui, wearing slippers, went for a walk along a greenway under construction with his classmates. Seeing that there was a protective fence around the greenway, the two men turned in.

Next to the greenway is a stream. Xiao Shen temporarily decided to go to the stream to wash his feet. Due to the rising water level, he accidentally fell into the stream and drowned.

Xiao Shens parents believed that they lost their children because of the potential safety hazards in the construction of the greenway. They sued the local town government, a city construction and Development Co., Ltd., an environmental Construction Co., Ltd., and a Garden Construction Co., Ltd., demanding that the four defendants pay more than 380000 Yuan for death compensation, funeral expenses and spiritual solace.

As the Construction Party of the greenway supporting project, a Garden Construction Co., Ltd. replied that it did not enter the construction site at the time of the incident, and there was no fault. Moreover, a protective fence has been set up around the construction site, and Shen crossed the fence to enter the greenway by force, so it has its own fault. The location of Shens death was not within the scope of the companys construction, nor was his death caused by the construction facilities of the defendant company. Therefore, there is no causal relationship between the death of the defendant company and Shen.

(function(){( window.slotbydup=window .slotbydup||[]).push({id:u5811557,container:ssp_ 5811557, async:true }A city construction and Development Co., Ltd., the employer of Greenway Construction, pleaded that there was no causal relationship between Shens drowning due to washing feet by the stream and the contract awarding behavior of the defendant company, and the plaintiff claimed that the infringement was not established. The contract awarding behavior of the defendant company does not violate the relevant provisions of laws and administrative regulations, and the employer has no supervision obligation on the project facilities. Shen should have foreseen that entering the river course which has not been opened at night and is in the rainy season has a great potential safety hazard. The local town government replied that Shens fault was the main cause of his death, and the town government had no fault in this case. The court heard that the accident happened at the time of flood season and the water level rose. Shen was 17 years old and had certain cognitive and discriminative abilities. In the dark and the water level obviously rising, he insisted on walking along the Greenway in slippery slippers, and washed his feet by the stream regardless of his own safety. His own negligence was the main cause of his drowning and the damage result of the case, and he was mainly responsible for the accident. The guardian failed to perform his duty of guardianship according to law, failed to fulfill the obligation of personal protection for Shen, and made some mistakes for his drowning. At the time of the accident, the garden construction company has not been engaged in the construction and is not responsible for compensation. And the construction personnel have the duty of care to set up obvious signs and take safety measures. Shens death was caused by the fact that he ignored the danger and fell into the water by washing his feet beside the stream, rather than the dangerous factors formed during the defendants construction. Therefore, the defendant, an environmental Construction Co., Ltd. and a Landscape Construction Co., Ltd., had no fault in the death of Shen, so they did not have to bear the responsibility. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant city construction and Development Co., Ltd. and the town government did not undertake the security obligations, but they did not provide evidence to prove that the defendant violated the security obligations in the drowning incident of Shen, which led to the occurrence of damage results. Finally, the court found that Shens death was caused by his own fault, and rejected the petition of Shens parents according to law. In other words, the obligation of personal safety and personal security should be guaranteed in the specific place. If the obligors have fulfilled their legal obligations and have no other negligent acts, they should not be held liable for compensation. As far as this case is concerned, Shens death is mainly caused by his own negligence, and the 4 defendants have no fault of violating the security obligations. The law not only protects the legitimate rights and interests of the victims and their families, but also protects the legitimate rights and interests of the innocent. Source: Taizhou traffic broadcasting editor in charge: Qin bailing_ NB17208

A city construction and Development Co., Ltd., the employer of Greenway Construction, pleaded that there was no causal relationship between Shens drowning due to washing feet by the stream and the contracting behavior of the defendant company, and the plaintiff claimed that the infringement was not established. The contract awarding behavior of the defendant company does not violate the relevant provisions of laws and administrative regulations, and the employer has no supervision obligation on the project facilities. Shen should have foreseen that entering the river course which has not been opened at night and is in the rainy season has a great potential safety hazard.