生命权、健康权、身体权纠纷案例汇编 | 法宝双语案例
本期双语案例推送汪洋与朱冬青等生命权、健康权、身体权纠纷再审案等生命权、健康权、身体权纠纷案例。
目录
1. 汪洋与朱冬青等生命权、健康权、身体权纠纷再审案
Wang Yang v. Zhu Dongqing, et al （retrial case regarding dispute over the rights to life, health, and bodily integrity）
2.张庆山、郭春香与湖南中南物流有限公司生命权、健康权、身体权纠纷案
Zhang Qingshan, Guo Chunxiang v. Hunan Zhongnan Logistics Co., Ltd （case regarding dispute over rights to life, health, and bodily integrity）
3. 王建诉宿迁楚翔金马车业有限公司因在购车过程中遭受损害索赔纠纷案
Wang Jian v. Suqian Chuxiang Jinma Vehicles Co., Ltd. （case regarding dispute over a claim for damage incurred during vehicle purchase）
一、汪洋与朱冬青等生命权、健康权、身体权纠纷再审案
Wang Yang v. Zhu Dongqing, et al (retrial case regarding dispute over rights to life, health, and bodily integrity)
【裁判要旨】
电梯作为公共乘运设备，应当处于正常运行的状态，以确保乘坐电梯者的人身财产安全。电梯未调试完毕而提前使用造成他人损害的，应当由负有过错的义务人承担赔偿责任。具体包括：生产者或者销售者负有将电梯调试完成、验收合格后交付使用的义务，其未履行完毕调试义务将电梯移交使用的，应当承担相应的赔偿责任。电梯的买受人或者管理人，负有在电梯调试完毕后将电梯开启使用的义务，其提前开启使用电梯的，应承担相应的赔偿责任。此外，如果其他电梯使用人，如业主，明知电梯未调试完毕而坚持要求提前使用电梯的，其自身存在过错，亦应当承担相应的赔偿责任。
[Judgment Abstract]
As public transportation equipment, elevators should be always kept in their normal operation to ensure the personal and property safety of users. Where an elevator is put into use prior to the completion of commissioning test, causing damage to others therefore, the obligor at fault should be liable for compensation. Specifically, its manufacturer or seller should be obliged to deliver it after completing the commissioning test and acceptance check. If its manufacturer or seller delivers it without completing the commissioning test, he or she should bear the corresponding compensation liability. Meanwhile, the buyer or keeper of the elevator is obliged to put the elevator into use after the commissioning test is completed. If its buyer or keeper puts the elevator into use in advance, he or she should bear the corresponding compensation liability. In addition, if other elevator users, like housing owners, knowingly insist on using the elevator before the commissioning test is completed, they should also bear the corresponding compensation liability as they are at fault themselves.
【法宝引证码】CLI.C.15672559
[CLI Code] CLI.C. 15672559(EN)
二、张庆山、郭春香与湖南中南物流有限公司生命权、健康权、身体权纠纷案
Zhang Qingshan, Guo Chunxiang v. Hunan Zhongnan Logistics Co., Ltd (case regarding dispute over right to life, health, and bodily integrity)
【裁判摘要】
作为房屋的承租人如果没有按照房屋安全规范安装并使用电器的，造成自身伤亡的，承租人作为完全民事行为能力人应该对自己的疏忽大意负责，对伤亡承担主要的责任。出租人应该对出租屋的安全隐患尽到监督、安全警示等义务，但是没有履行的，对于伤亡承担次要责任。
[Judgment Abstract]
Where a house lessee dies or gets injured due to his failure to install and use electrical appliances in accordance with housing safety regulations, the lessee, as a person with full capacity for civil conduct, should be liable for his negligence and assume the principal liability for the casualties. The lessor, as he or she should perform his or her duty of oversight and warning of the safety hazards of the house but fails to do so, should bear the secondary liability therefor.
【法宝引证码】CLI.C. 9493996
[CLI Code] CLI.C. 9493996 (EN)
三、王建诉宿迁楚翔金马车业有限公司因在购车过程中遭受损害索赔纠纷案
Wang Jian v. Suqian Chuxiang Jinma Vehicles Co., Ltd. (case regarding dispute over a claim for damage incurred during vehicle purchase)
【裁判摘要】
《中华人民共和国消费者权益保护法》第十八条规定：“经营者应当保证其提供的商品或者服务符合保障人身、财产安全的要求。对可能危及人身、财产安全的商品和服务，应当向消费者作出真实的说明和明确的警示，并说明和标明正确使用商品或者接受服务的方法以及防止危害发生的方法。”由此可见，经营者对消费者负有安全保障义务，经营者并未向消费者说明和标明正确使用商品的方法以及防止危害发生的方法，属于违反安全保障义务，因此导致消费者遭受人身损害的，应当承担赔偿责任。
[Judgment Abstract]
In accordance with Article 18 of the Law of the People's Republic of China on the Protection of Consumer Rights and Interests, “Business operators shall guarantee that the commodities or services provided by them meet the requirements for personal and property safety. For commodities and services liable to endanger personal or property safety, business operators shall give consumers truthful explanations and clear warnings, and shall explain or indicate the correct methods of using the commodities or receiving services, as well as the methods of preventing damage.” Accordingly, business operators should undertake the obligation of safety protection. Where a business operator fails to provide consumers with explanations and indications about the correct methods of using commodities and the methods for preventing damage, such act is in violation of the obligation of safety protection, to the extent that the business operator should assume compensation liabilities for any personal injury incurred as a result.
【法宝引证码】CLI.C.4057313
[CLI Code] CLI.C. 4057313(EN)
北京北大英华
科技有限公司
PKULaw
Chinalawinfo
PKULaw
Chinalawinfo
PKULaw
Chinalawinfo
-END-
最高院公报案例汇编 | 法宝双语案例
劳动纠纷案例汇编 | 法宝双语案例
侵害计算机软件著作权纠纷案例汇编 | 法宝双语案例
仿冒混淆不正当竞争案例汇编 | 法宝双语案例
环境损害赔偿纠纷案例汇编 | 法宝双语案例
子女抚养纠纷案例汇编 | 法宝双语案例
继承纠纷案例汇编 | 法宝双语案例
人身损害赔偿纠纷案例汇编 | 法宝双语案例
离婚财产分割案例汇编 | 法宝双语案例
担保合同纠纷案例汇编 | 法宝双语案例
垄断纠纷案例汇编 | 法宝双语案例环境公益诉讼案例汇编 | 法宝双语案例房屋拆迁安置补偿合同纠纷案例汇编 | 法宝双语案例工伤保险待遇纠纷案例汇编 | 法宝双语案例
破产纠纷案例汇编 | 法宝双语案例著作权权属、侵权纠纷案例汇编 | 法宝双语案例商标权权属、侵权纠纷案例汇编 | 法宝双语案例
关注下方公众号，获取更多法律信息