WASHINGTON (news correspondent Zhang Wei Cong Wei Yuan) 10-year-old Japanese boy surging Chinese (a pseudonym) in the evening, go out to play with children, scooters, guessed 45 minutes later, watching the top floor of a skyscraper from small area fall from the platform, was killed. Parents surging residential property developers and building companies to court to require the companies to the economic compensation for loss of 158 million yuan, 100 million in emotional and public apology through the media. This morning, Changning district court first instance verdict on the case, the two defendants should be jointly pay compensation for economic loss and the plaintiff a total of 62.9 million yuan in emotional.
the evening of March 18 last year, surging alone took the children out to play scooters. No one would have thought this to go rolling I can not never go home. District after the incident and obtained surveillance video showed that the surging living in Building 5 at 17:25 promise to go out, after 4 minutes,, Building 1,
belstaff uk, No. 2 in the elevator, he take the elevator to 3rd floor This building, in the The floor stayed 5 minutes. 17:35, surging transfer Gailou B2, 1 elevator to the basement floor,
19-year-old girls living together with her boyfrie, and again at the B2 level by 2 Even the top of the elevator to the 38th floor. 18:11 Xu night, watching falling from the roof platform, causing traumatic shock.
lost son of the rolling away of the son of parents can not accept reality. In their view, precisely because the door locks leading to evacuation of the roof is defective,
outlet belstaff, and no warning signs and warning measures, which leads to rolling accidents. Therefore, building developers and residential property management company should bear full responsibility for the death of rolling.
court has examined,
belstaff motorcycle jackets, from the top into the top floor of the platform Gailou subject to a license with a GMT type 916 glass door lock, the door from the direction of access to the platform, you can just push the start latch open, but the platform is open to the channel direction is required before the first use of a key or lock bolt into a fixed, or can not open. The court also identified, the building's developers in the same part of other buildings to install locks,
belstaff online, open in both directions. The court held that the developer should take into account one-way door open to residents of lock occurs on the roof of the situation; and the property for several years in property management, but also an obligation to timely replacement of locks, to eliminate hidden dangers. However, the two defendants were not promptly take appropriate safety measures constitutes a breach of duty of safety and security obligations, shall bear its considerable civil liability for fault.
the two defendants argued to the court, the door accidentally locked up for the evacuation of people trapped in the roof of the inconvenience and will not cause other damage, but not life-threatening. Day of the incident, the plaintiff did not follow the child in person or send someone to care, the safety of the children did not pay sufficient attention to enable children to go out alone to play out of control, leading to tragedy. Therefore, do not agree with the plaintiff's claim.
Court held that, watching a child who just turned 10 years old, with limited capacity, the plaintiff was not inappropriate to allow him to play out, but the negligence of the plaintiff children in this age possess a good move, adventurous characteristics,
belstaff blouson, the child may be expected to appropriate place for minors to play alone activity and in danger. Day of the incident, the plaintiff did not properly fulfill the responsibility of guardianship of the accident there are some fault.
The court held that the defendants violated obligations Safety and security is the main reason for death caused by torrential falls, it should bear 70% of the total amount of compensation determined, the plaintiff 30%, then made the decision . The plaintiff's other claims, the court were not supported.