How To Safeguard The Delivery Of A Courier

Due to the delivery to the owner, the delivery man accidentally fell into the basement of the owner's home, causing serious injuries. The family members of the freight transport company brought the owner, decoration company and the seller of the goods to court. Recently, the first intermediate court of Beijing concluded the case.

In October 19, 2013, Lee, who works in Beijing, agreed to send a new mattress to the owner's home in a residential area in Beijing. The owner's house was a compound on the first floor, and there was a hole in the room leading to the basement. Lee didn't know about it. When he moved the mattress into the house with the decorating workers, he accidentally fell into the basement from the reserved hole and was seriously injured.

Li's close relatives, including their parents, wives and two children, altogether 5 people will be involved in the mattress seller Zhang, decoration companies, and owners to court, requiring the three party to undertake the compensation in proportion to a total of more than 120 yuan.

In the court trial, mattress seller Zhang said that he established a legal relationship with the deceased Lee, rather than employing legal relations. Lee's family members, owners and decoration companies recognize the fact that the victim Lee and Zhang signed the agreement on cargo transportation. Lee himself operated, and the status of both sides was equal. There was no relationship between subordinates, management and management, domination and domination. In transportation contract In the legal relationship, Zhang has no death on the carrier Lee. compensate for Responsibility.

The owner said he had no contractual relationship with Lee. The main reason for Lee's death was that he did not fulfill his duty of care. As a deliverer, Lee could notice the existence of staircase when he paid a little attention. When the incident happened, the owner himself was not at the scene, and the management of the construction site was the responsibility of the decoration company.

Decoration company said: the incident occurred in October 19, 2013, and in September 20, 2013 a month ago, the decoration of the owner of the housing project has been officially completed, and the housing delivery to owners for use and management, it should be borne by the owners. responsibility On the day of the incident, the workers in the decoration company open the door and receive the goods, which is the personal behavior entrusted by the owners, not the official duties. The accident should be borne by the workers themselves.

The court of first instance held that in the case, the deceased Lee delivered to a strange environment without paying due attention to his personal and property safety. The agreement between the seller of the mattress and Mr. Lee of the deceased has no fault for the death of Lee, and there is no statutory compensation obligation for the contract of carriage of goods. As a company specializing in decoration works, decoration companies should anticipate that there is a hidden danger in the holes in the reserved staircases, and are obliged to take corresponding defensive measures. When they are completed, they do not take necessary safety measures to prevent accidents. The owner himself should know the legal consequences of signing the final acceptance list, and take corresponding measures to prevent accidents. However, he is negligent in management and prevention, and it also has faults in Lee's falling behavior.

To sum up, the court of first instance decided that Lee, the victim of the first instance, was responsible for 10% of the liability. The seller of the mattress was not liable for civil compensation. The decoration company was responsible for 60% of the liability, and the owner was responsible for 30% of the liability. On the issue of compensation for loss, the court of first instance found the following: medical expenses, loss of work expenses, funeral expenses, transportation expenses, accommodation fees, death compensation and mental injury solatium, etc., totaling over 100 yuan.

After the first instance decision, the owner refused to accept the appeal to the Beijing intermediate court. Although the decoration company also expressed its disapproval of the decision, it did not appeal. The main reason for the employer's appeal is that he is not responsible. After hearing the case, the Beijing intermediate court rejected the appeal and upheld the original judgment.