Restaurant barrier pole injures person, cannot escape duty of safety guarantee
Compiled from: China Court Network, Shandong High Court
Ren was walking across the pedestrian crosswalk at the south entrance and exit of the parking lot of Xiangxiang Restaurant when he was struck on the head by a barrier gate arm that descended at the parking lot exit. After the parking lot management company and Ren failed to reach an agreement through negotiation regarding compensation, Ren filed a lawsuit against Xiangxiang Restaurant with the court. Recently, the Haidian District People's Court of Beijing tried this tort case involving a pedestrian injured by a descending barrier gate arm and ruled that Xiangxiang Restaurant pay Ren more than 10,000 yuan in compensation.
[1] Image source from the internet; if infringement occurs, please delete!
Case review
The plaintiff, Ren, alleged that while passing by the pedestrian walkway at the south exit of the parking lot of Xiangxiang Restaurant, he was struck on the head by a barrier gate pole at that location and was later taken to the hospital by passersby for treatment. Ren contended that the scene of the incident had no personnel management, no safety warnings, and no protective measures to separate pedestrians, and that no one paid attention to him or provided timely assistance at the time of the incident. He asserted that Xiangxiang Restaurant was negligent in its management and bore undeniable responsibility for the accident. Accordingly, he filed a lawsuit with the court, demanding that Xiangxiang Restaurant compensate him for medical expenses and other losses totaling more than 40,000 yuan.
[2] Defendant Xiangxiang Restaurant argued that it had not committed any tortious act, as the parking lot was managed by another company, and Ren had sued the wrong party. It requested the court to add the parking lot management company as a defendant. The restaurant also contended that Ren’s injury resulted from his crossing a speed bump and rushing into the vehicle lane, and he should bear full responsibility. The restaurant denied all claims for compensation, stating they lacked factual basis.
[3] After trial, the court held that Xiangxiang Restaurant, as the user and manager of the parking lot, which was primarily used for its customers, could not evade its duty of safety by entrusting management to another company. Based on surveillance footage, on-site inspection, and post-incident rescue efforts, the court found that the restaurant had failed to fulfill its safety obligations and should bear liability. However, considering that Ren had not paid attention to road conditions while crossing the parking lot entrance and had deviated from the crosswalk, he bore some fault. The court issued the above judgment, which has now taken effect.
Civil Code of the People's Republic of China
[4] Article 1198
[5] Operators, managers of business premises such as hotels, shopping malls, banks, stations, airports, sports venues, entertainment venues, or organizers of mass activities, who fail to fulfill their safety guarantee obligations, causing harm to others, shall bear tort liability.
If harm is caused to another person by the act of a third party, the third party shall bear tort liability; if the business operator, manager, or organizer fails to fulfill the duty of security, they shall bear corresponding supplementary liability. After bearing supplementary liability, the business operator, manager, or organizer may seek recourse from the third party.
[1] The author's perspective
According to the above legal provisions, the security obligation of business premises is a statutory duty. Therefore, even if such operators or managers transfer part or all of their security obligations to others through “outsourcing” or “entrusted management,” they cannot defend against claims brought by external third parties.
[5] In this case, the barrier at the parking lot exit posed a hazard at the time of the incident, with no safety warning signs, and the restaurant failed to provide timely assistance to the injured party afterward. Thus, the court determined that the restaurant had not fulfilled its safety obligations and must bear compensation liability.
[6] This serves as a reminder to pedestrians to be cautious when walking, avoid rushing into vehicle traffic, and prevent unforeseen accidents. If encountering similar incidents, they should promptly seek recourse in accordance with relevant regulations to protect their legal rights.
