Real estate perspective... residential fire, the relevant subject should bear what kind of civil liability?

(1) Owner and user of electric vehicle

(2) Sellers of electric vehicles

(3) Manufacturers of electric vehicles

(4) Residential property manager

If the electric vehicle parked and charged illegally causes a fire, the owner and user of the electric vehicle will inevitably suffer property damage and risk of personal injury. If the fire is more serious, it may cause personal or property damage to a third person in the house. Therefore, at this time, consideration should be given to the damage that may be suffered by the owner, user and third party of the electric vehicle, and which subjects should bear the relevant damage results.

(1) If the property manager fails to fulfill the obligation of safety protection, he shall be responsible for the result of the damage, and shall be liable for tort damages to the owner, user or third party of the electric vehicle. To judge whether the property manager has fulfilled the obligation of safety protection, it is necessary to combine the property manager's maintenance of fire-fighting equipment, investigation and inspection of fire-fighting hidden dangers, and make a judgment on the specific situation.

Case:Made by the People's Court of Anji County, Zhejiang Province(2023) Zhejiang 0523 Minchu No. 990 Civil JudgmentAccording to the court, the property service enterprises in residential areas should maintain and manage the evacuation channels, safety exits, building fire-fighting facilities and fire truck channels in the management area, provide fire safety prevention services, strengthen the daily inspection of charging safety, and stop electric bicycles and electric motorcycles from charging in indoor places that do not meet the prescribed requirements. It is long-term and universal for the users of the unit involved to park the electric bicycles in the public stairwell and charge the power supply in the private weak current box. As the property service enterprise of the involved residential area, the defendant property company should take corresponding measures to clean up the electric bicycles in the stairwell. If it fails to clean up in time, it should be determined that it has not fulfilled its fire safety prevention obligation and the weak current box under its management is not locked to prevent others from using internal patch panel, it should be determined that the safety management obligations have not been fulfilled, and there is fault for the occurrence of the fire and the plaintiff's injury, and should be liable for compensation.

(2) If there is a quality problem with the electric vehicle, the infringer who suffered losses due to the fire of the electric vehicle may require the seller or manufacturer of the electric vehicle to be liable for compensation: the electric vehicle has a quality problem, and the quality problem is one of the causes of the fire. According to the provisions of Articles 1202 and 1203 of the Civil Code, the manufacturer of the electric vehicle shall be liable for tort. The infringed can claim compensation from the manufacturer of the electric vehicle or from the seller. If the quality defect of the electric vehicle is caused by the manufacturer, the seller shall have the right to recover from the producer after compensation. If the quality of the electric vehicle is defective due to the fault of the seller, the manufacturer shall have the right to recover from the seller after compensation.

Case:Made by the Intermediate People's Court of Kunming City, Yunnan Province(2023) Yun01 Civil Judgment No. 10248In this case, the court held that after the appellee purchased the electric bicycle at the appellant's place, the spontaneous combustion accident of the electric bicycle occurred during the parking process. after investigation by the fire department, the accident could not rule out the possibility of fire caused by electrical circuit failure, battery failure (thermal runaway), etc. It can be seen that in the process of using and parking the electric vehicle involved in the case, the electric vehicle caused unreasonable danger to the user, which is a product defect. Secondly, Article 52 of the "the People's Republic of China Consumer Rights Protection Law": "If a business operator provides goods or services and causes damage to the property of consumers, it shall be repaired, redone, replaced, returned, and made up in accordance with the law or the agreement of the parties. Civil liabilities such as quantity, refund of payment for goods and service fees, or compensation for losses." The appellant's sale of defective products caused a fire and caused property damage to the appellee. The appellee claimed to refund the purchase price and compensate for the actual losses, which complied with the law.

(3) If the electric vehicle does not have quality problems or cannot prove the existence of quality problems, the seller and manufacturer of the electric vehicle shall not be liable. If the fire causes damage to a third party, the owner, user of the electric vehicle and the property manager who has not fulfilled the safety guarantee obligation shall bear the liability for tort damages.

Case:made by the People's Court of Jianyang District, Nanping City, Fujian Province(2021) Min 0703 Min Chu Civil Judgment No. 1026In this case, the court held that: in this case, the plaintiff believed that there was a problem with the quality of a certain brand of electric vehicle product he purchased, which caused the fire in the process of charging, and should provide corresponding evidence to prove it, but the plaintiff did not provide evidence to prove it, and should bear the legal consequences of the inability to provide evidence. Therefore, the Court does not support its claim that the defendant is liable for compensation.

made by the People's Court of Shizhong District, Jinan City, Shandong Province(2022) Lu 0103 Minchu No. 9901 Civil JudgmentThe court held that the fire involved in the case was caused by the failure of the electrical circuit at the front of the vehicle and the loss of the plaintiff's property during the charging of a brand of electric bicycle belonging to the defendant Wang mou a at the scene of the accident that night. Because the vehicle involved in the accident was ridden by the defendant Wang B and charged at night, the defendant Wang B, as the actual user of the electric bicycle involved in the accident on the day of the accident, has the obligation to conduct timely safety inspections to ensure the safety of the vehicle. In the process of charging the electric vehicle, it should perform the necessary safety precautions, discover potential safety hazards in time, and avoid safety accidents. Defendant Wang a, as the owner of the electric vehicle involved in the case, has the obligation to manage the vehicle at any time to ensure that there are no potential safety hazards and no safety accidents. Therefore, for the economic losses caused to the plaintiff in this case, the defendants Wang A and Wang B should jointly bear the corresponding civil liability.

(1) The owner and user of the equipment.

(2) Equipment management and maintenance obligor

(3) Seller of equipment

(4) Manufacturer of equipment

(5) Residential property manager

(1) If there is a quality problem with the electrical equipment, the infringer who suffers losses due to the fire of the electrical equipment may require the seller or manufacturer of the electrical equipment to be liable for compensation (refer to the above-mentioned electric vehicle fire situation).

(2) If the manager and maintenance obligor of the equipment fail to fulfill their management and maintenance obligations, they shall be liable for the fire caused by the equipment problem and shall be liable for tort damages to the infringed.

Case:made by the People's Court of Hunchun City, Jilin Province(2022) Jilin 2404 Minchu No. 2122 Civil JudgmentIn the middle, the court held that: the property right of the electrical circuit at the fire site in this case should belong to a power company, and its obligation to manage, repair, maintain and ensure the safe use of electricity by users is not fulfilled for the wires between the overhead poles and the residential residential meters, and it is at fault and should bear the corresponding legal liability. In addition, although a power company indicated in the power supply reply form that the property right demarcation point is the junction between the public overhead line and the user's household line, the agreement does not conform to the relevant provisions of the state, and the agreement is invalid, and the property right demarcation point is determined by a power company in the form of format terms, which belongs to its mandatory agreement. As a power user, it is impossible to repair the wires from the public overhead line to the residential meter, nor are users allowed to operate on public overhead lines on their own. Therefore, a power company should be liable to the residents who suffered fire losses.

(3) If the property manager fulfills the obligation to maintain and manage the fire-fighting facilities shared by the residential community, and also performs his obligations in accordance with the property management service contract, there is no need to bear the liability for compensation to the owner of the fire in the residence. However, if the loss caused by the fire is expanded by the negligence of the property manager, the property manager shall be liable for the expanded part of the loss.

Case:Made by the Second Intermediate People's Court of Beijing(2020) Jing 02 Min Zhong No. 3901In the middle, the court held that: according to the fire accident confirmation, although the cause of the fire did not eliminate the external fire source factors, according to its determination, the fire point was located inside the balcony of the plaintiff's home and was not caused by the balcony, so the plaintiff should bear full responsibility for the loss of the fire. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant (property company) lost management, causing the fire passage in the community to be blocked and the fire hydrant in the wall of the building to have no water, resulting in delay in fire fighting and expansion of losses, but did not submit valid evidence to support it. In addition, according to the reply of Dongcheng Fire Detachment, whether the fire passage in the residential area is blocked and whether there is water in the fire hydrant on the wall of the building has no causal relationship with the fire fighting route and the selection of fire hydrant. Therefore, it cannot be determined that the fire fighting delay and the loss are expanded due to the above situation. Therefore, the plaintiff's various claims based on this claim, because there is no factual and legal basis, the court will not support it, and the defendant (property company) does not need to bear the liability for compensation to the plaintiff.

Made by the People's Court of Decheng District, Dezhou City, Shandong Province(2022) Lu 1402 Minchu No. 2031 Civil JudgmentIn the middle, the court held that the plaintiff should bear 90% of the responsibility as appropriate for the fire caused by the electrical circuit failure of the electrical equipment in the master bedroom, resulting in property losses. Due to the existence of the residential area managed by the defendant: there is no water for indoor fire hydrants in building 5; For illegal acts such as insufficient number of actual personnel on duty in the fire control room, the defendant shall bear 10% of the responsibility as appropriate.

(1) Residential property owners

(2) Gas enterprises

(3) Residential property manager

(1) If the property manager fulfills his obligations to maintain and manage the fire-fighting facilities shared by the residential community, and also performs his obligations in accordance with the property management service contract, there is no need to bear the liability for compensation to the owners who cause fires due to poor gas management. However, if the property manager is negligent in management and causes the loss caused by the fire to expand, the property manager shall be liable for the expansion of the loss (including damage to third parties) (refer to the above-mentioned power supply, electrical equipment caused by the fire situation).

(2) The gas enterprise is the subject of management responsibility and risk responsibility for the gas facilities outside the owner's exclusive part within the building zoning, and the owner-user is the subject of management responsibility and risk responsibility for the gas facilities within the owner's exclusive part within the building zoning. If the gas company conducts a safety inspection on the safe use of gas in residential houses, and there is no fault for the occurrence of the fire accident, the gas company does not have to bear the responsibility. Otherwise, the gas company shall be liable for tort damages to the infringed.

Case:The Third Intermediate People's Court of Beijing Municipality(2023) Beijing 03 Minzong No. 3816 Civil JudgmentIn this case, the gas company conducted a safety inspection on the safe use of gas in the house involved, and there was no evidence that the gas company was at fault for the occurrence of the fire accident. Gas stove equipment does not belong to the service scope of the gas company and a property center. To sum up, the gas company is not responsible.

made by the People's Court of Haishu District, Ningbo City, Zhejiang Province(2023) Zhejiang 0203 Minchu No. 9823 Civil JudgmentThe court held that the defendant XX company, as a gas supply enterprise, especially as a flammable and explosive special industry enterprise, should pay the greatest attention to the safety of users. Although the defendant XX company inspected the gas facilities in the house involved in the fire according to the legal time limit and put forward the rectification opinions, it is not enough to prove that it has fully fulfilled the obligations of dissuading, stopping and reporting the behavior of gas users violating the safety gas use regulations, that is, it has not fulfilled the obligation of safety inspection, therefore, we should also bear the corresponding responsibility for this accident.

(1) The owner and manager of the goods.

(2) Residential property manager

Stacking flammable items in the house will increase the possibility of fire. If the burning of the item causes personal or property damage to the infringed, the owner and manager of the item shall bear the tort liability. In addition, for events that may cause fire hazards, the property manager should timely supervise and eliminate the hidden dangers in order to be regarded as having fulfilled its legal obligations, otherwise, it should be regarded as failing to fulfill the necessary security obligations, and in the event of a fire, the property manager must bear the corresponding legal responsibility.

Case:The Third Intermediate People's Court of Beijing Municipality(2021) Beijing 03 Civil Judgment No. 15120In China, the court held that the fire involved in the case was caused by Wang's large pile of waste cardboard and other items in public areas, which did not rule out the factors that caused the fire. Wang is a direct infringer and should bear tort liability. The property company failed to fulfill the corresponding management obligations, allowed the existence of flammable and dangerous materials such as waste cardboard, and eventually caused a fire, and should bear the full supplementary compensation liability for Wang's infringement.