#Dangling cable trips pedestrian, telecom company cannot evade responsibility

Compiled from: Yanzhou District Court, Jining City
 
Case review
On October 13, 2021, plaintiff Zhang, while riding an electric bike on a road south of a village, was tripped by a drooping cable belonging to a telecom company, causing multiple fractures. Zhang was treated at Yanzhou District People's Hospital in Jining City for 16 days. After multiple unsuccessful negotiations with the telecom company, Zhang filed a lawsuit on June 2, 2022, with the Yanzhou District Court, requesting a judicial assessment of the injuries. The assessment determined Zhang suffered a Level 10 disability. Consequently, Zhang demanded the defendant telecom company pay over 150,000 yuan in total damages.

 
 

The court found that the fallen cable in this case belonged to a telecommunications company, which, as the owner, had the duty to manage, maintain, and supervise the cable. Since it failed to provide evidence that it had fulfilled its necessary management obligations, it should bear corresponding tort liability for the harm suffered by Zhang. However, Zhang also should have carefully observed road conditions and controlled his cycling speed. His accidental fall while riding indicated his own fault, which could appropriately reduce the telecommunications company's liability. Therefore, based on the facts and legal provisions, the court determined that the telecommunications company should bear 70% liability for Zhang's losses from the injury and ordered it to compensate Zhang for medical expenses, disability compensation, lost wages, etc., totaling 104,228.24 yuan.
 
 
《 [1] The People's Republic of China Civil Code
Article 1173
If the injured party is also at fault for the occurrence or escalation of the same damage, the liability of the tortfeasor may be reduced.
 
Article 1253
If a building, structure, or other facility, or an object placed or suspended thereon, detaches or falls and causes harm to another person, the owner, manager, or user shall bear tort liability unless they can prove that they were not at fault. After the owner, manager, or user has compensated, if there are other responsible parties, they have the right to seek recourse from those other responsible parties.
 
 
[1] The author's perspective
From this, it can be seen that the principle of presumed fault applies to damage caused by building detachment. That is, for the owner, manager, or user of a building to be held liable, fault must still be established, but the victim is not required to prove such fault. The victim only needs to prove that they suffered damage and that the damage was caused by the detachment of the relevant building. In other words, as long as there is a fact of building detachment causing damage, the owner, manager, or user of the building is presumed to be at fault, and they may be held liable for compensation. The owner, manager, or user can only avoid liability by proving that they were not at fault for the detachment.
 
The reason for this provision is, on one hand, to minimize the victim's burden of proof, and on the other hand, to encourage the owner, manager, or user of the building to fulfill more duties of management, maintenance, and care in daily life, and to take effective measures to prevent detachment, thereby avoiding harm to others.