NEWS
NEWS
The court ruled that the hotel was responsible for 60% of the 10-grade disability caused by the "swallow" of the food elevator.
2024-05-14
author：
Page view：
The court ruled that the hotel was responsible for 60% of the 10-grade disability caused by the "swallow" of the food elevator.
Many restaurants are using food transfer elevators, and this seemingly ordinary equipment also has potential safety hazards. On the 29th, the Hunan High Court notified the plaintiff Ren and the defendant of a hotel and the actual operator Chen of a dispute over liability for violation of safety and security obligations.
Man falls into food-passing elevator shaft
The court found that the plaintiff Yueyang Ren was a wedding operator, and the defendant Chen was the actual operator of a hotel. On February 25, 2021, because a customer held a wedding banquet in a hotel of the defendant, he entered the scene of the wedding banquet arranged by the defendant's hotel and paid 200 yuan to the hotel for the venue usage. The elevator on the second floor of the hotel 1. is set up for the convenience of operation. No warning signs are posted at the entrance of the elevator, and there is no special person on duty, which has a major safety hazard. When arranging the wedding scene on the second floor, Ren fell into an elevator shaft more than three meters deep from the entrance of the food-passing elevator, causing a fracture of the left knee tibia and an injury to the medial meniscus of the left knee.
Ren in a hospital in Yueyang after 27 days of hospitalization for rehabilitation treatment. Later, a certain injury was identified as grade 10 disability. Ren sued to the court, requesting to order the defendant Chen Mou and his hotel to jointly compensate him for various losses totaling 202810.55 yuan.
A hotel of the defendant argued that it did not approve of the plaintiff Ren's payment of the 200 yuan venue fee. Ren has arranged venues in the defendant's hotel many times and is familiar with the conditions of the hotel's venues. Moreover, the hotel's food-passing elevator has a safety rolling gate. The hotel has regulations for employees that the rolling gate must be closed before leaving work every day. Ren himself has a major fault.
The court ruled that the hotel was responsible for 60%
After hearing, the court held that on the day of the incident, the plaintiff Ren Mou was not the first time to arrange the scene at the defendant's hotel. When he walked near the food elevator, he should maintain a certain duty of care to avoid accidents near the elevator shaft. Ren said that he went to the location of the incident several times to find a power socket at that time, but the hall where he was arranged had a socket, and the location of the incident was a certain distance from the electronic screen of the right hall, so it was not reasonable to find a socket there. On the other hand, the light in the incident area is not good and it is dark. If, as Ren Mou claimed, he did not find a socket after several trips, he should use lighting equipment or seek help from hotel staff instead of groping around in the dark, resulting in tragedy. Therefore, Ren Mou himself is obviously at fault.
As to whether the rolling shutter door of the food elevator was open or closed at the time of the incident, whether Ren moved the rolling shutter door, and whether Ren paid 200 yuan for the site usage fee to the defendant's hotel, it was difficult to jump to a conclusion due to insufficient evidence. However, for the defendant, its management obligation for the elevator is obviously not limited to closing the rolling shutter door, but also setting up obvious safety signs, installing guardrails, locking at any time or taking stricter care obligations, etc., so as to eliminate hidden dangers from the source and avoid accidents. If the defendant cannot ensure the elimination of hidden dangers through the above measures, he should take other more effective measures in the future, such as the improvement or replacement of the food elevator, the use of higher safety factor of the equipment to fulfill the hotel manager's security obligations. The defendant a hotel did not fulfill the above obligations, so the occurrence of the case has a certain fault. As the actual operator of the hotel, the defendant Chen should share the corresponding fault liability with the hotel.
To sum up, the plaintiff Ren Mou, the defendant a hotel and Chen Mou all have certain faults because they have not fulfilled their respective obligations, and the defendant has greater responsibility and should bear the main responsibility. Therefore, it is determined that the second defendant bears 60% of the compensation liability for the plaintiff's losses, and the plaintiff bears 40% of the responsibility. The court found that the plaintiff Ren lost a total of 152894.02 yuan. In the end, the court ruled that the defendant Chen and a hotel should compensate the plaintiff Ren more than 90,000 yuan within ten days after the judgment came into effect. After the judgment of the first instance, both parties accepted the appeal.
Source: Gongli Elevator Network
If there is infringement, contact Li delete
Keywords:
AVIC Elevator Equipment, AVIC Elevator, Elevator Sales, AVIC Elevator Sales, Elevator Maintenance
Contact us
Address: Emei Mountain Road, Gaoping Industrial Park, Huichuan District, Zunyi City
Public account
Mobile terminal
Copyright © 2024 CHINA AVIATION GUIZHOU ELEVATOR CO.,LTD All Rights Reserved