[2] The case of Lan Mouxiang and Wei Moujin v. Shenzhen Dongmou Outpatient Department and Wu Moucheng over a right-to-life dispute, represented by Attorney Zhang Yong and Attorney Guo Yixuan of Zhiming Law Firm, was recently corrected and reversed in the second instance by the Shenzhen Intermediate People's Court. Our client, Shenzhen Dongmou Outpatient Department, saw its liability for compensation significantly reduced, with its legitimate rights and interests fairly and favorably upheld.

[3] Dongmou Outpatient Department rented a house owned by Wu Moucheng in Changlong New Village, Buji Street, Longgang District, Shenzhen, for use as employee dormitories. In March 2017, Lan Moujie (the son of the two plaintiffs) moved in after joining the outpatient department. On March 27, Lan Moujie died accidentally while showering at the residence. A death medical certificate issued by the public security authorities indicated that the cause of death was carbon monoxide poisoning from a gas water heater. After the incident, Lan Moujie's parents filed a lawsuit seeking over 430,000 yuan in damages, including death compensation, funeral expenses, and mental distress damages. The first-instance court, disregarding objective facts and legal provisions, simplistically and roughly concluded that Wu Moucheng and Dongmou Outpatient Department, as the lessor and lessee of the property, had failed to fulfill their safety obligations and bore significant fault, ordering the two defendants to jointly and severally bear 70% of the accident liability. This first-instance judgment meant that our client, merely as a lessee, would unfairly share over 300,000 yuan in compensation liability with the lessor Wu Moucheng. More complicatedly, the first-instance court's ruling did not resolve the dispute but hastily directed that the liability between the two defendants be addressed through separate legal proceedings, exacerbating the conflict in apportioning responsibility between them and making an already unjust ruling even more tangled and confusing.

Facing an extremely unjust and highly irresponsible verdict, the lawyers from Zhiming Law Firm, on behalf of our client, filed an appeal with the Shenzhen Intermediate People's Court, arguing that the first-instance court's findings of fact were seriously erroneous. Our client, Dongmou Outpatient Department, as the employer and lessee, had fulfilled its management duties and obligations, including regularly inspecting the premises and urging employees to ensure housing safety. Moreover, according to the law, the safety obligations of the lessee and the lessor regarding the leased property cannot be equated. Wu Moucheng, as the lessor, should have fulfilled his obligations as a lessor in accordance with the law, ensuring the safety of the facilities within the leased property. Additionally, we solemnly pointed out in court that the first-instance court violated the basic principles of resolving disputes, concluding cases, and facilitating judicial access for the people. Such judicial inaction in the verdict severely undermines judicial authority and seriousness, only exacerbating social conflicts. Through the detailed explanation of facts, reason, and law by the attorney, as well as active efforts, the second-instance court supported our appeal, finding that our client, Dongmou Outpatient Department, bore minor fault, and amended the judgment to hold our client liable for 10% of the compensation, with Wu Moucheng bearing 60%. After the second-instance judgment, after deducting the amounts we had advanced, our client no longer needed to pay compensation to the two plaintiffs. Thus, through Zhiming lawyers' persistent efforts in lawful rights protection and precise analysis of the disputed issues, laws, and trial strategies, the unclear liability of the client in this case was reversed in the second instance, and their legitimate rights and interests were justly upheld.