If a resident falls and is injured in the community after a snow, is the property responsible?
The plaintiff Zhang lives in a certain community, and the defendant provides property services for the community. At about 14:50 on November 8, 2021, the plaintiff Zhang was injured while passing on the road on the east side of Building 2 in the community. The plaintiff was hospitalized at the county hospital for 16 days after his injuries, and his injuries were diagnosed as a fracture of the right femoral neck. The plaintiff's injuries were identified by the judicial appraisal center entrusted by the court as Grade 9 disability, with a period of 365 days for lost work, 150 days for nursing, and 180 days for nutrition. The plaintiff sued the court and ordered the defendant to compensate the plaintiff for various losses totaling 289404 yuan.
The defendant alleges that the snow began at 8 a.m. on November 6, 2021 and ended at 8 p.m. on the 7th, with a snowfall of 227 mm. On the day of the snowfall, the defendant cleared the snow by manual sweeping, spreading snow melting agent and salt melting snow, focusing on the roads, steps, and uphill and downhill locations. The snow is thick, and it is impossible to clean it up immediately after a snowfall. The defendant actually ensured the passage of the road and fulfilled its full duty of safety and security, and there was no causal relationship between the plaintiff's fall and the defendant. The defendant had fulfilled the task of clearing the snow, and the plaintiff fell due to his own mobility inability (the plaintiff had been involved in a previous traffic accident, which caused his legs and feet to be inconvenient) and did not carefully observe the road conditions, and the fall injury was entirely caused by his own cause.
The court of first instance held that the parties had the responsibility to provide evidence to prove the facts on which their claims were based or on which they refuted the claims of the other party. Where a party fails to provide evidence or the evidence is insufficient to prove its factual assertions, the party with the burden of proof shall bear the adverse consequences. The plaintiff in this case claimed that he fell and injured himself on November 8, 2021 due to the icing of the road on the east side of the unit building where he lived, and provided the court with two CDs and one CD taken at 3:07 p.m. on November 8, 2021, witness testimony in court, discharge records ,..from the county hospital, judicial appraisal opinions, and a weather information sheet of the county meteorological bureauBased on the facts supported by the above evidence and the testimony of the witnesses in court, this court found that the plaintiff's injuries were caused by his fall on the ice and snow road while he was passing on the east side of Building 2 in a community at about 14:50 on November 8, 2021.
Article 942 of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China stipulates: "The property service provider shall, in accordance with the agreement and the nature of the use of the property, properly repair, maintain, clean, green and manage the common parts of the owners in the property service area, maintain the basic order in the property service area, and take reasonable measures to protect the personal and property safety of the owners." ThereforeThe defendant, as the property service provider of the community involved in the case, should take reasonable measures to remove the roads on which the owners of the community involved in the case travel in a timely manner after snowfall, so as to protect the personal and property safety of the owners。In the present caseThe defendant did not provide evidence to substantiate that it had cleaned the road in questionDuring the trial, it claimed that the roads in the community were cleaned and snow melting measures were taken, which clearly contradicted the large area of ice and snow roads shown by the monitoring ** provided by the plaintiff.
Therefore, the court of first instance found thatThe defendant was at fault for failing to fully fulfill its duty of safety within a reasonable range, and there was a certain causal relationship between the plaintiff's fall injury and the defendant's fault。The plaintiff's allegation that the road surface was icy did not necessarily cause it to fall and be injuredAs an adult, they should have a high duty of care for their own safety when traveling in ice and snow weather, and the main reason for their fall and injury is that they have not fulfilled the necessary safety care obligationsTherefore, the plaintiff should bear 85% of the liability for its own fall injury, and the defendant should bear 15% of the plaintiff's liability for falling injury. Therefore, the court of first instance ruled that the defendant property service *** should compensate the plaintiff Zhang for medical expenses, nursing expenses, hospital meal subsidies, nutrition expenses, disability compensation, mental injury solace, transportation expenses, appraisal fees, etc., totaling 3202134 yuan (15% of the total loss), and other claims of the plaintiff Zhang were rejected.
The defendant, a property service ***, appealed against the judgment.
After trial, the court of second instance held that Article 942 of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China stipulates that: "The property service provider shall, in accordance with the agreement and the nature of the use of the property, properly repair, maintain, clean, green and operate the common parts of the property management service area, maintain the basic order in the property service area, and take reasonable measures to protect the personal and property safety of the owners." "The appellant, a property service provider, as a property service provider, shall have the obligation to ensure the safety of the personal and property safety of the owners of the community in accordance with the provisions of the law and the contract.
In this case, the appellantIt has a basic maintenance obligation for the community roads it manages, and should take snow removal measures in key locations, such as sidewalks, stairs, etc., in a timely manner after snowfall, so as to ensure the safe passage of the owners。However, the relevant evidence provided by the appellant failed to prove that it had cleaned the road involved in the case, and the monitoring** provided by the appellant showed that there were still large areas of ice and snow pavement in the community involved in the case, which meant that the appellant had not fulfilled its safety and security obligations as stipulated in the law and the contract, so the appellant's claim that it had fully fulfilled its safety and security obligations was not accepted. In summary, the appeal request of a property service *** cannot be sustained and should be dismissed;The first-instance judgment found that the facts were clear and the law was correctly applied, and should be upheld.
The original text is from the website of judgment documents, and some of them have been modified for the convenience of description).