According to the case, ***** people were injured in the elevator after get off work.
Author | Attorney Liang Xiaoxing
01
Case Summary: An “Accidental” Incident After Work
In October 2023, construction worker Chen was working at the renovation site of a hotel in Foshan City. One day after work, he was about to take the construction elevator down. However, upon entering the elevator, the elevator door had not fully opened, causing his head to collide with the door frame. His body leaned backward and he fell, stepping onto a wet and slippery wooden plank laid at the elevator entrance that was covered in sand, resulting in a severe injury to his left hand and a Grade 10 disability.
After the incident, Chen sought compensation from his employer, Li, and the two parties reached a settlement for RMB 30,000. However, we contend that the accident was directly attributable to lapses in safety management at the construction site. Accordingly, we have jointly sued multiple parties associated with the project—namely, the hotel management company, the renovation contractor, the lessor, and the supervisory entity—seeking to hold them liable for tort based on their failure to fulfill their duty of ensuring safety.
02
Challenges in the case: Multiple liable parties and a complex web of legal relationships.
At the outset of representation, this case presented three major challenges:
1. There are numerous parties bearing responsibility, making it difficult to clarify the legal relationships.The case involves multiple parties, including the hotel management entity (a certain hotel), the renovation contractor (a certain decoration company), the construction elevator rental provider (a certain leasing company), the general project contractor, the supervision entity, and the land lessor. All parties claim “it’s not my responsibility” and attempt to shift the blame onto others. The primary challenge is how to precisely identify the individuals who bear direct and specific managerial responsibilities for the accident.
2. There are disputes regarding the findings of fact, and the chain of evidence must be rigorously established.At the time of the incident, there was no surveillance footage, and the specific cause of Chen’s injuries—whether he “accidentally fell” or “fell due to external safety hazards”—became the central point of contention. The opposing party, relying on Chen’s own statement during the labor arbitration proceedings (“I fell because the ground was wet and slippery due to rain”), seeks to disprove his assertions in this case that “the elevator door was not fully open” and that “the wooden plank was wet and covered with sand,” thereby challenging the veracity and credibility of his testimony.
3. May the compensation paid during the preliminary mediation be offset in the present case?Mr. Chen has already received 30,000 yuan in compensation from his employer. Both a certain hotel and a certain decoration company contend that this payment should be set off against their respective liability for damages in this case; otherwise, Mr. Chen would be deemed to have received “double compensation.” The key to safeguarding the legitimate rights and interests of the parties lies in legally demonstrating that the two constitute distinct legal relationships and should not be set off against each other.
03
Solution Approach: Precise Identification, Clarification of Responsibilities, and Upholding the Dignity of the Law
In response to the aforementioned challenges, we have developed the following agency strategy:
1. Accurately define the legal relationship and identify the primary obligor.We maintain that this case is not a simple “liability for harm suffered by a service provider,” but rather a tort dispute arising from the failure of the manager of a public place (the construction site) to fulfill its duty of ensuring safety. By analyzing the construction elevator rental contract and the renovation works contract, we successfully narrowed our focus to“Has actual management and operational control over the elevator”'s certain hotel, as well as “Bears the responsibility for safety management and cleanup of the renovation area (including the elevator exit passage)” A certain decoration company at .
Both the court of first instance and the court of second instance adopted our view and corrected the cause of action to“Dispute over Liability for Breach of the Duty to Ensure Safety”。
2. Construct a complete chain of evidence to reconstruct the factual truth.We made full use of the witness testimony from the previous case (Chen v. Li) to prove:
The elevator doors are not operated in compliance with regulations by the operator throughout the entire process; they are often opened by passengers, and at the time of the incident, the doors were not fully open.
Unsecured wooden planks have been laid at the elevator exit, and there is sand and water on the planks, posing a slip hazard.
By combining weather records with site photographs, the objective plausibility of “wooden boards being wet and covered with sand” was demonstrated.
points out that Chen’s statements during the arbitration proceedings do not contradict his statements in this case; rather, the emphasis in his description of the accident’s cause differs, while the core factual account (that he slipped at the elevator entrance) has remained consistent.
3. The “offset of gains and losses” rule shall not apply.We clarified to the court that the RMB 30,000 settlement payment received by Mr. Chen from his employer represents a mutually agreed-upon compensation reached on the basis of their employment relationship, with its legal foundation being Article 1192 of the Civil Code concerning “individual labor service relationships.” In this case, the basis for liability of a certain hotel and a certain decoration company is the tort-based legal relationship; the respective liable parties and the grounds for their claims are mutually independent and do not arise from the same factual occurrence giving rise to the harm.
This view ultimately received explicit support from the second-instance court.
04
Case Outcome: The second-instance judgment was revised; the liability ratio was upheld, and the compensation amount was reasonably adjusted.
Following intense proceedings in both the first and second trials, the Intermediate People’s Court of Foshan City, Guangdong Province, has rendered its final judgment:
1. Uphold the first-instance court’s determination of the liability ratio:The court found that a certain hotel, due to its employed driver’s failure to be on duty and properly manage the elevator as required,There are management deficiencies in the oversight of special equipment.; A certain decoration company due toThe elevator exit passage has not beenFailure to clear hazards such as sand accumulation and slippery surfaces on wooden planks constitutes a failure to fulfill the duty of ensuring safety., each party shall bear 15% of the liability for compensation.
Chen was found to bear 70% of the primary responsibility due to his own negligence. This proportional division fully embodies“ Whoever manages is responsible. The principle of equal rights and responsibilities in “.”
2. Refine the adjustment of the compensation amount:The second-instance court partially corrected the damages determined by the first-instance court and ultimately ruled that a certain hotel and a certain decoration company shall each compensate Chen a sum of RMB 25,221.48, for a total of RMB 50,442.96.
3. It is hereby clarified that the compensation awarded in the prior case shall not be set off against the present case:The court holds that the compensation paid by the employer does not offset the tort damages in this case, and the appeal claims of a certain hotel and a certain decoration company are not upheld.
05
Case Lessons: There are no trivial matters when it comes to safety; management must be carried out with due diligence.
The successful outcome of this case not only secured the compensation that Mr. Chen was entitled to, but also serves as an important warning regarding safety management at construction sites:
1. The manager’s “safety string” must never be loosened, not even for a moment.Whether it’s the hotel management or the renovation contractor, as long asAnyone who has management and control over a specific area or piece of equipment must fulfill the statutory duty to ensure safety.. For specialized equipment such as “construction elevators,” it is not sufficient to simply “rent them out and be done with it”; it is imperative toEquipped with a certified driver and strictly adheres to operating procedures.; For the transportation corridor ofRenovation materials, it is mandatory toClean up promptly to eliminate safety hazards.。
2. The “safety string” of working people must not be loosened either.This case also serves as a reminder to all workers: when working under tight deadlines, always prioritize your safety, adhere to operating procedures, and avoid taking unnecessary risks that could lead to serious consequences.
3. The law does not protect victims who “lie flat.”The party concerned bears major negligence and shall assume primary responsibility. However, the law will never condone managers who attempt to shift blame. As long as the management bears any fault, it must “pay the price” for its dereliction of duty.
06
Conclusion
The handling of this case represents a precise interplay between legal principles and factual details. We successfully helped our client clarify the complex legal relationships, refuted the opposing party’s unreasonable defenses, and ultimately secured a just judgment. We are committed to safeguarding the legitimate rights and interests of every worker. We’re on the move.
Attorney Liang Xiaoxing
Partner at Zhiheng (Foshan) Law Firm
Area of focus:
Corporate legal affairs, contract law matters, corporate labor and employment compliance, civil and commercial litigation/arbitration, drafting, review, and negotiation of international sales contracts for goods, export control and sanctions risk assessment, cross-border commercial disputes.
Phone:18316957910
Office address:17th Floor, Chengfa Center, No. 1, Jihua Sixth Road, Chancheng District, Foshan City, Guangdong Province
Past EpisodesRecommended
Zhiheng · Foshan