The core idea: engaged in accommodation, catering, entertainment and other business activities or other social activities of natural persons, legal persons, other organizations, did not exhaust the reasonable limits of security obligations caused others to suffer personal injury, the right to compensation for the person requesting it to bear the corresponding liability, the people's court shall support.

Facts of the case:

The defendant on September 19, 2007 to receive the certificate of ownership of the house, the seventh floor of the attic, no title certificate. 2009, the defendant began to rent out the attic. 2013, the attic was rented out to the victim, the two sides did not sign a written housing lease contract. The defendant had told the victim not to cook in the attic of the leased room, high-power electrical appliances to pay attention to the use of electricity safety.

The kitchen connected to the refrigerator and kettle plug board and Yang Lihua cooking with the plug board has existed before the victim moved in, against the west wall at the plug board plugged in the refrigerator and kettle, the two electrical appliances twenty-four hours in the state of energized.

On the morning of November 28, 2015, a fire broke out, resulting in the death of one of the victims.

Hangzhou Public Security Bureau Fire Brigade issued a "Fire Accident Determination", identified: fire time for November 28, 2015, 17:35 or so; fire part of the Beigan Street Beigan a court 46 building 2 unit 702 room kitchen room; fire point: kitchen distance from the south wall of 1.3 meters from the west wall of the 50 centimeters; the cause of the fire for the plug-in board and electrical appliances plug connection at the electrical fault triggering Fire.

The defendant Zhang Xiaoliu argued:

1, the defendant does not have responsibility for the occurrence of the accident, the case is through the formal development and construction of the housing and fire authorities and thus obtained the approval of the property license, the house itself does not have defects.

2, from the accident certificate, the cause of the fire is electrical socket and plug board connection overheating, the defendant did not provide the plug board to the tenant, in fact, the fire is caused by the tenant improper use of electrical appliances, according to wang wen's statement, before the accident, the deceased bought food to cook, using a can not be automatically cut off the power of the quality of the rice cooker, the defendant believes that the accident occurred by the improper use of electrical appliances. occurred was caused by the deceased's improper use of electrical appliances.

3, after the fire, the deceased as a full capacity for civil behavior has the ability to prevent the further spread of fire or to protect their personal safety, so the deceased should be responsible for their own.

4, from the plaintiff told the petition amount, obviously too high. Opinions on the list of compensation:The plaintiff is a rural household, the deceased should also be a rural household, death compensation should be calculated in accordance with rural standards, that is, 21125 yuan / year × 20 years = ""422500 yuan; Funeral expenses 24186 yuan, Hangzhou last year, the average monthly salary of employees 4031 yuan / month × 6 months; cremation fee no Objection; moral damage consolation money up to 50,000 yuan.

The court held that:

According to Article 6 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues on the Application of Law in the Trial of Personal Injury Compensation Cases, "natural persons, legal persons, other organizations engaged in lodging, food and beverage, entertainment and other business activities or other social activities do not do their utmost to safeguard the safety of the obligation of the reasonable limits of causing others to suffer personal injury, the right to compensation requests the right holder to apply for compensation, and the right holder requests the right to compensation for the compensation. Personal injury, the right to compensation for its request to bear the corresponding liability, the people's court shall support." The defendant rented the attic without property rights to the victim's behavior, belongs to the judicial interpretation of the above "engage in business activities", so this case should be applied to deal with the above provisions.

From the facts of this case:

1, the attic without the approval of the relevant departments to build, there is no corresponding property rights, and the building is separated by wooden boards are not configured with the appropriate fire safety facilities.

2, the defendant will be rented to the attic of the victim to live, engaged in rental business activities, should be rented to the fire safety management, should be reasonable limits of security obligations.

3, the defendant rented the attic did not install air circuit breaker, did not provide fire safety facilities, the provision of electrical appliances did not check in a timely manner, failed to do within reasonable limits of the safety obligation, and the defendant to provide the attic with wooden partition, resulting in a fire after the spread of fire rapidly, resulting in Yang Lihua trapped and burned to death, which the defendant as a duty of safety there is obvious fault.

Combined with the degree of fault of the defendant's security obligations and the actual case, the defendant was discretionary to the victim's death to bear 60% of the compensation responsibility.

Combined with the defendant's security obligations and the actual case, the defendant bears 60% liability for the death of the victim.