Brief introduction of the case: the plaintiff Wang claimed that the plaintiff and the defendant Liu signed a house lease contract, and the leased area was the first floor facade and basement warehouse of the house, which was used by the defendant to open a supermarket. At the end of 20 12, the basement warehouse of the supermarket caught fire. Later, the fire accident was identified by the public security fire department: "The fire area was 500 square meters, causing damage and burning of the house. A large number of fireworks, daily necessities and other items are stored in the underground warehouse of the supermarket. The cause of the fire is unknown, and the fire point is located in the middle of the warehouse. It is not ruled out that the fire caused by accidental spontaneous combustion of domestic fire. " After the accident, the original defendant and the defendant failed to reach an agreement on compensation and went to court.
Objection: During the trial of this case, there are four different opinions on how the defendant Liu should bear the liability for compensation. The first opinion is that the defendant, as the manager of the warehouse, stored a large number of combustible materials such as fireworks and firecrackers, and was at fault for the occurrence of the fire, so he should bear the tort liability directly and take full responsibility. The second opinion is that the principle of fair liability should be applied to such cases, and the responsibility should be shared by both parties. Because the plaintiff was not at fault in the incident, the defendant was not at fault for the fire. Therefore, the application of the principle of fairness should be borne by both the original and the defendant. The third view is that such cases are general infringement cases, and the principle of fault liability should be applied to the infringer's infringement. If the cause of the fire is unknown and the infringer cannot be identified, the plaintiff's claim should be rejected on the grounds of unclear facts and insufficient evidence. The fourth opinion is that the defendant, as the manager of the underground warehouse, failed to fulfill the corresponding security obligations and should bear the corresponding supplementary compensation liability within a reasonable limit of preventing and stopping the fire.
Opinion analysis and reasons: In similar cases I know, courts all over the country have applied the above four opinions in judicial practice, and more tend to apply the second opinion, but I think it is more appropriate to apply the above fourth opinion for the following reasons:
Regarding the first opinion, there is no legal basis to think that the owner and manager of combustible goods are infringers, because the manager of combustible goods obviously did not do the infringement that caused the fire. Since he didn't commit the tort that caused the fire, he should bear the tort liability, which obviously doesn't conform to the legal logic.
The second opinion is controversial. First of all, the principle of fair liability is not the imputation principle of tort law in China. Tort Liability Law adopts a dual liability system combining fault liability and no-fault liability (see Understanding and Application of Tort Liability Law in People's Republic of China (PRC), edited by Xi Xiaoming), but it does not stipulate the so-called fairness principle. Article 24 of the Tort Liability Law stipulates that "if the victim and the actor are not at fault for the occurrence of the damage, they can share the loss according to the actual situation", but this article only regards the principle of fairness as. Secondly, even if this article is applied, fair liability only applies between the infringer (infringer) and the victim. Article 24 of the Tort Liability Law stipulates that the subjects are "victims and perpetrators". Literally, the perpetrator means that the person who committed the act should obviously be the one who committed the tort in the Tort Liability Law, and the perpetrator is the main type of the perpetrator (it should be noted that the difference between the perpetrator and the perpetrator is that the perpetrator includes both the perpetrator and the perpetrator, although in most cases they overlap, in most cases, the person responsible for the injury is separated from the perpetrator, and the subject scope of fair liability is positioned between the perpetrator and the victim, and the legal norms are appropriately expanded. From the terms represented by Articles 6, 7 and 8 of Tort Liability Law, it can be logically concluded that "actor" should only refer to the actor (it should be called "actor" in certain circumstances such as vicarious liability). Therefore, article 24 can only be applied between "offender" and "victim". It does not apply to the legal relationship between the defendant's warehouse manager Liu (non-actor) and the plaintiff (victim). In the case that the cause of the fire in this case is unknown, it is obvious that the manager of combustible materials in this case is not the infringer who caused the fire, that is, the injurer, and the injurer should be an unknown fire or arsonist. It is obviously a mistake to ask the defendant to bear fair liability when the perpetrator is not clear. It is to impose the so-called principle of fair liability on the defendant, which should be borne by the fire victim or arsonist.
The third opinion is correct in theory. Because the Tort Liability Law does not stipulate the principles for handling such cases, this case is not a special tort. Therefore, it should be handled in accordance with general tort. However, the mistake of this view is that it ignores the safety guarantee obligation of managers, that is, the obligation to prevent fires. Although the defendant is not a direct infringer, that is, a fire or arsonist, as the manager of combustible materials in the warehouse, the defendant has problems of inadequate fire prevention and neglect of management. Therefore, it is not appropriate to directly dismiss the plaintiff's appeal.
For the fourth opinion, the theory of security obligation should be applied in this case, that is, if the security obligor engaged in related business activities and social activities fails to fulfill his security obligation and causes damage to others, he shall be liable for damages. If the damage of the victim is caused by the tort of a third party, and the security obligor is at fault, he shall bear the corresponding liability for compensation. Therefore, the defendant in this case should bear the corresponding supplementary liability for compensation. This view is also supported by the author.
With regard to the obligation of safety and security, Article 6 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Laws in the Trial of Personal Injury Compensation Cases stipulates: "If a natural person, legal person or other organization engaged in business activities such as accommodation, catering, entertainment or other social activities fails to fulfill the obligation of safety and security within a reasonable scope, causing personal injury to others, the people's court shall support it. If damage is caused by infringement by a third party, the infringing third party shall be liable for compensation. If the security obligor is at fault, he shall bear the corresponding supplementary liability for compensation within the scope that he can prevent or stop the damage. After assuming the responsibility, the security obligor may claim compensation from a third party. If the right holder of compensation sues the security obligor, the third party shall be regarded as a co-defendant, except that the third party is uncertain. " In addition, Article 37 of the Tort Liability Law also stipulates that "managers of public places such as hotels, shopping malls, banks, stations, entertainment places or organizers of mass activities who fail to fulfill their security obligations and cause damage to others shall bear tort liability. If the behavior of a third party causes damage to others, the third party shall bear the tort liability; If the manager or organizer fails to fulfill his security obligations, he shall bear corresponding supplementary responsibilities. " The above two articles have made detailed provisions on the obligation of safety and security. The main contents of the security obligation include two aspects, namely, the security obligation of "things" and the security obligation of "people". "Things" are mainly embodied in the obligation of keeping, maintenance and equipment. This case belongs to the security obligation of "things". Although the cause of the fire accident cannot be determined, the fire point is located in the middle of the warehouse where the defendant stores combustible materials. The flammable items in the warehouse are owned by the defendant Liu and managed by him. The defendant did not take relevant safety measures (such as isolating the fire source, keeping the underground warehouse dry and ventilated) for a large number of flammable items such as fireworks and firecrackers stored in it. ) prevented the fire from happening, but he was at fault because he failed to fulfill his obligations of safety management and prevention (this fault is not the fault of fire behavior, so it should be distinguished). Therefore, the owner and manager of the combustible materials in the warehouse of Zuowei Liu, the defendant in this case, should bear the corresponding supplementary liability for compensation for preventing and stopping the fire within a reasonable limit.