Is it an accident or a quality question?The responsible party of the child's walk was smashed by the guardrail and was sentenced to more than 1.46 million yuan

Yangcheng Evening News all -media reporter Dong Liu

Is it an accident or a quality problem when the ancestor's embankment was traveled and died of an invalidation of the head of the child. The reporter learned from the Guangzhou Intermediate People's Court yesterday that the court determined that there was a quality defect, and the victims were sentenced to more than 1.46 million yuan.

In the early spring of 2020, Xiao Ming (pseudonym), who was only two years old and five months old and five months old (pseudonym), walked to a sideline embankment accompanied by his grandmother. Traumatic specialty craniocerebral injury rescue is invalid to die on the day.

On the same day, the public security organs conducted on -site inspections and issued the "On -site Examination", recorded: "There are guardrails on the side of the rushing north side of the river, 102cm high, each two columns is 200cm. The side is a single column, which is not connected with other guardrails. The west side columns are connected to other guardrails. The length of the fence falls off is 215cm.

In addition, in January 2010, Company A packed the embankment reconstruction project to Company B construction. The project was completed and accepted and transferred to Company A on March 9, 2012. The quality warranty period until March 9, 2013 was actually used and managed by Company C.

Xiaoming's parents sued to the court and requested that the company A, Company B, and C: 1. Compensation for it 169,4340 yuan (dead compensation 130,1040 yuan, funeral expenses of 63,800 yuan, mental damage comfortable consolation, transportation fee of 5,000 yuan, transportation fee of 5,000 yuan, and transportation costs, transportation costs of 5,000 yuan, and transportation costs, transportation costs of 5,000 yuan, and transportation expenses, transportation costs of 5,000 yuan,, transportation costs of 5,000 yuan, and transportation expenses, transportation costs of 5,000 yuan, and transportation expenses, transportation costs of 5,000 yuan. The accommodation fee is 7,500 yuan, and the misrepresented fee is 17,000 yuan);

After hearing the people's court of Haizhu District, Guangzhou, the guardrail involved was not in a state of abandonment or unmanned managed, and no warning signs containing "prohibiting walking" and "prohibiting approach" have been used. An accident caused by collapse caused by no severe weather and other special circumstances at the time of the incident. The suddenly collapse of the guardrail involved was not predictable. The victim was accompanied by his grandmother to pass through the guardrails involved in the case. There was no fault in the occurrence of the result of the damage, nor did the guardian failure, and the responsibility of the infringer could not be alleviated.

Regarding whether the warranty period can be exempted for granted, the court pointed out that the warranty period is the period for the construction unit to conduct free repair on the quality of construction projects. The adjustment is the relationship between the construction unit and the construction unit, and there is no binding force on the victims. On the basis of fully considering the characteristics of the fixed assets that can be used for a long time, it should be determined by reference to the actual and reasonable useful life that similar projects can be achieved. And acceptance. When the damage involved in the case occurred, the fence involved in the case was less than eight years. The warranty period had expired, but within the reasonable use of the life, there was a collapse and no evidence to prove that there were other reasons, and the quality defects should be determined.

The first instance judgment of the People's Court of Haizhu District, Guangzhou: 1. Company A and Company B will bring compensation to Xiaoming's parents for 1172,272 yuan within ten days from the date of effectiveness; ; 3. Reject other litigation requests of Xiaoming's parents.

The third defendant was dissatisfied and appealed. The second trial of the Guangzhou Intermediate People's Court: Reject the appeal and maintain the original judgment.

Dong Guangxu, the judge of the People's Court of Haizhu District, Guangzhou, reminded that the construction unit must strictly perform the acceptance responsibility for acceptance and prevent buildings with quality problems from being put into use from the source. The construction unit shall strictly construct in accordance with engineering standards, eliminate bad habits such as cutting corners, and correctly understand the difference between the guarantee period and the reasonable use of years. Do not try to escape the liability of the damage caused by the collapse of the building through the short warranty period. Building users and managers should fulfill their daily inspections and maintenance responsibilities, timely discover and eliminate the risk of accidents, and reasonably set up warning signs to reduce the occurrence of accidents.

- END -