The whole building was sentenced to compensation for the death of a baby girl with an iron ball: How does the law give consideration to favors
Recently, a piece of news that "a baby girl was killed by an iron ball from the sky, and the entire building was awarded compensation" has once again triggered public discussion on this classic legal issue.
In 2016, at Building 127, Youfang Street, Suining City, Sichuan, an iron ball falling from the sky hit a baby girl under one year old in a stroller downstairs and killed her.
After the incident, the local police intervened in the investigation, but failed to find the thrower.
Therefore, the parents of the baby girl filed a lawsuit against all the residents of the entire building where the incident occurred.
Not long ago, the Chuanshan District Court of Suining City ruled at first instance that, except for those whose homes were truly unoccupied, the owners of the remaining 121 households compensated the plaintiff with 3,000 yuan each.
Currently, the judgment of the first instance has not been executed, and more than 30 business owners involved are preparing to appeal.
(CCTV News September 14)
The dissatisfaction with some business owners is understandable.
As some owners’ representatives in the appeal said, “After the incident, I was very far away from the place where the incident occurred. I was separated by a few buildings. There must be nothing wrong with me.” “There was a problem with the unit building where the incident occurred. 3000 yuan?" "In the spirit of humanitarianism, we can donate a little to others appropriately, but not as much as 3000 yuan per family."
Obviously, my family has nothing to do with the death of the child with an iron ball from the sky, but they have to bear the "responsibility for compensation." Isn't this paying the bill to the culprit?
However, legally speaking, the court's decision is not without basis.
The Tort Liability Law stipulates: “Those objects thrown from a building or objects falling from a building cause damage to others, and it is difficult to determine the specific infringer. In addition to being able to prove that you are not the infringer, the user of the building who may have caused the damage Compensation.” The Civil Code continues the legislative spirit of the Tort Liability Law, and provides for compensation to “owners of buildings that may infringe” if it is difficult to determine who is the infringer.
The reason why the law makes such a provision is that after exhausting the means of accountability for fault, the victim will face the situation of no remedy.
Let the “owners of buildings who may harm the building” extend a helping hand and collectively bear the “responsibility for compensation”, which may not be fair enough to these people, but it is the most practical fairness to the victims, and this fairness principle also reflects modern law Humanitarian spirit.
Of course, the law is not rigid.
According to the Tort Liability Law, “if the perpetrator is presumed to be at fault according to the law, and the perpetrator cannot prove that he is not at fault, he shall bear tort liability”.
The Civil Code also has similar provisions that "users of potentially injurious buildings" shall compensate, unless there is evidence to prove that they are not the infringer. "Users of potentially injurious buildings" have the right to recover compensation from the infringer after compensation.
For those owners who are dissatisfied, if there is definite evidence that they have no fault in the skyfall iron ball, they can exclude their legal liability for compensation.
For those owners who have assumed the responsibility of compensation, the law also guarantees the right of recourse. One day the truth will become clear and they will be able to get back the compensation money.
In the Civil Code, although the responsibilities for the public security organs are added, it is stipulated that when throwing objects from the building causes damages to others, the public security organs shall promptly investigate in accordance with the law and find out the responsible persons, but the public security organs are not God, 100% The detection rate is just ideal.
In this incident, the public security organs have launched an investigation, but the parabola was not found.
When the person responsible for the fault cannot be determined, the presumption of fault will become the protagonist.
Of course, because the provisions of the Civil Code are too abstract, follow-up legislation must further clarify the procedures, standards, and requirements for public security organs to intervene in investigations in order to ascertain the truth to the greatest extent possible and make the responsible persons bear due legal responsibilities.
For victims and their families, iron balls, toys, tools, bicycles, and even a small piece of fruit or eggs that fall from the sky may cause huge physical and mental harm.
In recent years, from tort liability law to civil code, from relevant judicial interpretation to judicial practice, the efforts of legislation and judicial system are forming a tough legal net to regulate throwing objects and falling objects at height.
Regarding this human tragedy of the death of a baby girl with an iron ball from the sky, whether it is the “compensation” of the entire building in the first instance judgment, or the subsequent appeals of the owners of the second instance, it is a rare rule of law refinement, which brings not only a collision of ideas, but also It will be progress in the rule of law.
Liu Tingting Source: China Youth Daily