Warning | When the fire hydrant was dry, the court refused to confirm the maintenance agreement and the property was found to be responsible for 30%

November 26, 2014, who lives in Huilong Town, Qidong City, the home of North Zhu home fire, resulting in furniture, appliances and interior decoration were burned, the fire department issued a certificate recognized foreign sources of ignition caused drying on the balcony quilt racks Fire caused a fire. Zhu then brought the property company and 24 households living upstairs to court.

Recently, the Qidong City Court made a first-instance judgment on the property damage compensation dispute and ordered the defendant Qidong City Property Management Co., Ltd. to compensate the plaintiff Zhu for a total of 93,000 yuan in losses , and rejected the plaintiff Zhu’s other lawsuit requests.

Prior to February 24, 2017, the Court had to Qidong Zhu Zhu upstairs tenants FAN complaint, Silver Island property damages property first instance verdict, the verdict Zhu Island property with a silver bear 70% and 30% Compensation, total compensation Fanmou spent 8,965 yuan to repair the damaged houses .

The Court found that at 11:26 on November 2014 Ri 36 points, Qidong Qidong City Police Fire Brigade squadron received 119 command center, said the case involving house fires, burned area of about 40 square meters, mainly burned television, air conditioning, sofa , Shoe cabinets and other electrical equipment, furniture and decoration, no casualties. The fire brigade determined that the cause of the fire was as follows: The fire was caused by a quilt over a balcony drying rack causing fire.

By the plaintiff, the court commissioned to assess the company law case involving the assessment of housing due to fire caused property damage assessment report finds that the losses due to fire house to assess the value of the base date of November 26, 2014 was 31 million yuan.

According to the original report, when the fire hydrant in the corridor was empty, the property company stated that the water pressure instability did exist, and the fire trucks took water from other fire hydrants for only five or six minutes. When the fire truck arrived at the scene, all the items in the house had been burned and there was no loss of expansion. Other defendants in the court believed that there was indeed a situation where fire engines could not enter due to the blockage of the fire exits. At that time, the nearest fire hydrant was not dry, and the fire engine took fire from the fire hydrant in the northeast downstairs.

The defendant property company provides 30 November 2009 and signed by its spring peak Nantong City Fire Technology Co., Ltd. "fire alarm system maintenance agreement," fire duty records, proof of the owners' committee, civil judgments, donation receipts, It is proved that the property company has fulfilled the obligation of maintenance and maintenance of fire protection facilities. Another cell plaintiff has contributed 3 million yuan, which is also based contributions to compensate losses defendant plaintiff. The plaintiff believes that the agreement can only prove that the responsibilities that the property company should perform are managed by others, and the responsibility for the neglect of management by others should be borne by the property company. There is no record of the time of the accident in the fire duty record table, and the property company is also certified. Failing to perform its duties, the judgment and the certificate could not reach its purpose of proof, and the donation has indeed been received, but it cannot be used as a ground for compensation by the property company.

Qidong Court held that the perpetrator should bear tort liability for infringement of another’s civil rights due to fault. With regard to the determination of the responsibility of the property company, the property company of the defendant, as the property management department of the community, has administrative duties for the smoothness of the roads in the community and the maintenance and maintenance of fire protection facilities. Yi Jing Technology Fire Po can implement the fire safety responsibility system. Combining the evidence presented by the plaintiff and the trial statement of the parties to the trial, the fact that there is no fire hydrant can be ascertained. Due to the poor management and maintenance of the property company of the defendant, the delay in firefighting was objectively caused, and the property company of the defendant was significant to the plaintiff. There was a fault in the loss. The court decided that the defendant property company should bear 30% of the loss of the plaintiff .

With regard to the determination of other owners’ responsibilities, the court held that Article 87 of the Tort Liability Law clarified the burden of proof of the plaintiff (that is, the victim): that is, the plaintiff (ie, the victim) in cases of damage caused by throwing objects from high places. The burden of proof is merely to prove the fact that he was injured due to throwing objects from above. It is not necessary to determine who caused the damage, the causal relationship between the act and its damage, and the subjective fault of the person who committed the tort. Prove it. In this case, the plaintiff provided only the fire accident certificate of No. 0007 of Bus Start Public Fire Protection ( 2014 ) , which was considered to be a fire caused by a quilt on balcony drying racks from outside sources of fire, but did not specify the source of the fire department upstairs. The plaintiff did not provide evidence to prove that the source of the fire and the origin of the fire had been thrown, and the source of the foreign fire did not possess the attributes of the throwing objects or falling objects mentioned above. Therefore, the court refused to support the claim that the plaintiff requested other owners to assume joint and several liability for their losses.

Based on this, the court ruled that the defendant Qidong Property Management Co., Ltd. compensated the plaintiff Zhu for a total of 93,000 yuan in losses , and rejected the plaintiff Zhu’s other claims.

This is a typical case of neglect of fire safety management. With the help of intelligent fire-fighting techniques, fire safety management is strengthened to ensure that fire protection inspectors are in place and fire inspection routines are standardized to prevent recurrence of similar accidents.