Tenant Xiao Yun (a pseudonym) was killed by an electric shock when he was bathing in an electric water heater in the house. Xiao Yuns parents then sued the landlord, intermediary company, water heater manufacturer and so on to Daxing Court, claiming more than 2.1 million damages including death compensation. A few days ago, after trial, the court decided that the landlord should compensate more than 900,000 yuan for the family members of the deceased, and the intermediary company should compensate more than 250,000 yuan.
In April 2016, Xiao Yun signed a lease contract with an intermediary company to rent a house in Daxing for 1,200 yuan a month. One day in July 2016, Xiao Yun was killed by electric shock while using electric water heater in the house. After the identification conclusion, Xiao Yun accords with the death of electric shock, and is not a criminal case.
After the incident, Xiaoyuns parents sued the landlord, intermediary company, water heater manufacturer and so on. They believed that the landlord, Mrs. Zhou, intermediary company had the obligation of security and daily management and maintenance to the facilities put into use in the rental house, and had the responsibility of injuring people by the electric water heater. In addition, there are serious quality problems in the electric water heater, and the manufacturer shall be liable for damages caused by defects in the product. Xiao Yuns parents claim compensation for death, spiritual solace and so on, totaling over 211 yuan.
The landlord intermediaries argued that they should not be held responsible.
Ms. Zhou, the landlord, said she did not know who Xiao Yun was. She signed a contract with an intermediary company, and the rent was paid by an intermediary company. When the house was delivered to an intermediary company, she specifically reminded the intermediary company that the water heater must be heated in advance to use. The lease contract reminded Xiao Yun that he needed to heat the water heater in advance and power off when using it. Xiao Yun also signed the contract. At the time of the case, the plug in the water heater was connected, so Xiao Yun died because of his own reasons.
According to the reasons stated by the plaintiff, the manufacturer and seller of the electric water heater should be liable for the infringement caused by the defective product quality, and Xiao Yun should not be liable for the damage caused by the use of the electric water heater.
Electric water heater company argues that the service life of the water heater is eight years, the company has not produced in the last 15 years and the involved electric water heater similar machinery, the company should not bear joint and several liability, nor should it be held responsible.
The court decided that the two defendants were to blame.
The court held that as the actual owner of the house and the supplier of the electric water heater in the case, Ms. Zhou should have the obligation to ensure the normal and safe use of the furniture, household appliances and water heaters in the house. The court decided that the landlord should bear 70% responsibility and compensate Xiao Yuns parents for the reasonable loss of more than 900,000 yuan.
The intermediary company should assume the obligation to ensure the safe use of the rental housing, bear the responsibility of 20%, and compensate Xiao Yuns parents for a reasonable loss of more than 250,000 yuan.
Xiao Yun himself, as a normal and rational person, has not fulfilled his duty of prudence. He should also bear certain responsibilities. The court decided that Xiao Yun should bear 10% responsibility.
As for the manufacturer of electric water heater, the parties did not submit the relevant evidence of the production and sale of Sampdoria Electrical Appliance Company in this case, so the court demanded that the responsible party should not support it.
After the verdict of the first instance, the landlady Zhou and the intermediary company refused to accept the appeal. After trial, the Second Intermediate Court of Beijing held that the facts of the first instance judgment were clear and the applicable law was correct, which should be maintained. The second court finally rejected the appeal and upheld the original judgment.
Source: Beiqing Net - Beijing Youth Daily editor: Wang Zheng _NN7526