Add Bookmark | Recommend this book | Back to the book page | My bookshelf | Mobile Reading

Free Web Novel,Novel online - All in hlnovel.com -> Prose -> Hello Miss Lawyer

Chapter 471 Infringement dispute over falling objects (1)

Previous page        Return to Catalog        Next page

    ?

    Lin Ziyao took a case of dispute over parabolic objects in the sky. The client was the owner of the entire building No. 9 in Cuihu Community. The whole building has nine floors and two households per elevator. There are a total of 18 households with 72 households, 12 of whom are unidentified.  For adults, the lawsuit shall be represented by the parents.

    A month ago, a Porsche sedan with a red ribbon tied to its rearview mirror was parked under Building 9 of Cuihu Community, and was hit by a brick falling from the sky.

    The maintenance cost exceeded 200,000 yuan, and the owner of the car took the entire residents of Building No. 9 to court.

    In recent years, more and more incidents of high-altitude parabolic and falling objects have occurred, which seriously threaten the safety of people's lives and property, and are called "pain hanging over the city".

    1. Characteristics of liability for damage caused by objects thrown or dropped from tall buildings:

    1. Damage to people caused by objects thrown and fallen from high buildings: objects thrown from buildings cause damage to others; objects falling from buildings cause damage to others.

    2. The item is thrown or dropped from a tall building and causes damage to others.

    3. It is difficult to determine the specific infringer.

    II. Liability subject for damage caused by objects thrown or dropped from high buildings:

    According to the "Tort Liability Law" and the "Opinions of the Supreme People's Court on Properly Hearing Cases of Throwing and Falling Objects from Heights", when the actual infringer of a throwing or falling object cannot be determined, it is presumed that the owner of the entire building is the tort owner  , including the actual users of the building at the time of the infringement: building owner, lessee, borrower, and other people who use the building;

    If the house is rented out, then the landlord and the renter will jointly compensate.  The lessee is actually living in the house and is directly responsible for the safety of the house. He could foresee and prevent the aging glass but did not deal with it or notify the landlord in time to deal with it.  The landlord, as the owner of the house, needs to undertake the corresponding supervisory obligations. If the obligation is not fulfilled, the owner or management personnel should bear the obligation of compensation.

    2. The subject of responsibility is the building user who cannot prove that he is the infringer.

    3. The principle of proof of liability for damage caused by objects thrown or dropped from tall buildings: the inversion of the principle of proof for tort liability.

    The general principle of tort liability imputation requires the infringed to prove that the damage was caused by the infringer, and then the tort liability can be determined, while the dispute over falling objects requires the actual user of the building to prove that he is not the infringer, the most direct proof  The method is that when the tort occurs, he is not in the building.

    my country's Tort Liability Law stipulates that if a building, structure or other facility and its shelved or suspended objects fall off or fall and cause damage to others, and the owner, manager or user cannot prove that he is not at fault, he shall bear tort liability.

    1. The person who was smashed has completed his proof as long as he proves that he passed by the place and was hit by the falling object from the building.  The rest is for the owners of the entire building to prove that they did not throw or drop objects; if they fail to prove or cannot find the actual thrower, all the owners of the corridor shall jointly bear the liability for compensation.

    This is responsible for the person who was smashed. Since it is impossible for the person who was smashed to provide evidence to prove that a certain owner threw the object, it is unrealistic to require the person who was smashed to provide evidence, so it is suitable for inversion of proof.

    Therefore, the principle of liability for falling objects is applicable to the principle of inversion of proof in the law, that is, the victim only needs to prove that he was hit by a falling object or a parabolic object, and the rest of the burden of proof is on the residential property owner.  (Remember the site URL: www.hlnovel.com
Didn't finish reading? Add this book to your favoritesI'm a member and bookmarked this chapterCopy the address of this book and recommend it to your friends for pointsChapter error? Click here to report