Liability for Resident's Slip on Dog Feces & Disability

Liability for Resident\x26#39;s Slip on Dog Feces \x26amp; Disability

On January 7, 2024, Mr. Liu, a resident in a community, went out as usual. Unexpectedly, he stepped on dog feces that had not been cleaned up in time on the community's sidewalk and slipped.

Mr. Liu was injuired and rushed to the hospital, and later, his injury was identified as a grade 10 disability of the left lower limb. Mr. Liu believed that the community property management company had failed to fulfill its safety guarantee obligations, so he filed a lawsuit against the company, demanding that it bear all losses caused by his fall and disability. 

After hearing the case, the court held that Mr. Liu himself was negligent. Under normal circumstances, pedestrians should conduct a safety risk assessment of the road they are about to pass through. Before Mr. Liu passed the accident road, elderly people and children had already passed safely, which indicated that pedestrians could pass safely as long as they paid more attention and reasonably avoided obstacles.

Mr. Liu did not observe the obstacles on the ground carefully and failed to avoid the dog feces, resulting in the fall. He was negligent in failing to foresee the damage that should have been foreseen. Therefore, the court determined that Mr. Liu should bear 70% of the primary fault liability for the damage. 

In addition, the community monitoring video showed that the property cleaning staff cleaned the accident road at around 8:56 am on the day of the incident. However, at 11:07 am, several residents were walking their dogs, and no security or cleaning staff were seen patrolling and persuading them during this period, indicating that the property management had flaws in patrol and supervision. The accumulated dog feces on the road objectively posed a risk of causing residents, including Mr. Liu, to slip and get injured. 

Moreover, due to a damaged monitor, the dog's owner could not be found. The property management company was negligent in failing to foresee the damage that should have been foreseen. Therefore, the court determined that the property management company should bear 30% of the secondary fault liability for the accident damage. 

According to Article 1198 of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China: "Managers of public places such as hotels, shopping malls, banks, stations, and entertainment venues, or organizers of mass activities, who fail to fulfill their safety guarantee obligations and cause damage to others, shall bear tort liability." Although this clause does not directly mention community property management companies, in judicial practice, community public areas are usually recognized as "public places", and property management companies, as managers, are required to fulfill safety guarantee obligations. 

At the same time, Article 35 of the Property Management Regulations stipulates: "Property service enterprises shall provide corresponding services in accordance with the provisions of the property service contract. If a property service enterprise fails to fulfill the provisions of the property service contract, resulting in damage to the personal and property safety of the owners, it shall bear corresponding legal liabilities in accordance with the law." This clarifies the safety guarantee responsibilities that property management companies should bear based on the property service contract. 

From a legal perspective, this case reflects the definition of safety guarantee obligations and the division of fault liability. The safety guarantee obligation of property management companies is not an unlimited liability but needs to be fulfilled within a reasonable limit. In this case, although the property management company cleaned the road before the incident, it failed to supervise the dog-walking behavior afterward and could not effectively prevent the occurrence of dangers, so it should bear corresponding responsibilities. 

As the primary person responsible for his own safety, Mr. Liu should also fulfill basic duty of care while walking. He did not fully observe the road conditions, so he is also held accountable for the occurrence of the damage. 

Do you agree with the court's judgment?