Weifang TV station news, on May 15th, a boy in Chongqing accidentally hit a glass wall with a basketball

On May 15th, in a shopping mall in Chongqing, there was an endless stream of customers, and everyone was shopping for merchandise. At this moment, in front of a counter in the shopping mall, suddenly, there was a crisp sound like a large piece of glass breaking instantly, along with this sound, there were several screams. The worker at the counter then saw that a glass wall suddenly collapsed, and a young boy was hit by a man, fell between the broken glass, and suddenly howled.

  Although some adults saw the glass falling and rushed over to rescue them, it was still too late. The boy was injured and was subsequently sent to a doctor for treatment. Later, in the process of investigating the cause of the accident, the monitoring of the mall was called to restore the course of the accident.

   It is reported that before the accident, the boy was holding a basketball in front of a nearby counter. He kept playing and his family did not pay attention to the child. After the boy got the basketball, he smashed it hard against the glass wall. Unexpectedly, a few seconds later, the glass wall collapsed and the boy was hit by it. The injured are still receiving treatment in the hospital, and the incident is still under further investigation.

After looking at it, the video showed that after a basketball bounced onto the glass wall, after a short delay, it began to be suppressed as a whole. There are not many known factors, so let’s analyze this matter from a legal point of view. This kind of thing is a point: who is responsible for the injury of the child when the glass is pressed down. the mall? Store? Parents of children? child? This thing seems to be a multi-cause and one-effect behavior. The basketball hits the glass, and the glass is delayed and then pressed down. The first is to evaluate the behavior of the child, and the second is to evaluate the scope of responsibility of the store. The behavior of children playing basketball in the video is not the same as the behavior of bear kids riding cars in the past. The behavior of glass falling occurs in the area of ​​merchants, and the basketball hitting the glass is not fully responsible. The second is the scope of the store’s safety guarantee obligations. Article 1198. The operators and managers of hotels, shopping malls, banks, stations, airports, stadiums, entertainment venues and other business places, public places, or mass activities. The organizer shall bear tort liability if he fails to fulfill his safety guarantee duties and causes damages to others. If the glass of the bathroom sauna room is broken for no reason, the bathroom will definitely take responsibility. But this is a store, so we need to analyze specific issues in detail. But there are three points in this case: 1, the safety of the glass wall, 2, whether there are warnings on the glass, 3, whether the clerk is obligated to persuade the child’s behavior, if you think about it, there are still many requirements for the business. However, how this case will be handled will still be subject to the judge’s ruling after ascertaining the facts of the whole case.


By zhiwo

0 0 vote
Article Rating
Notify of
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
8 months ago

Take a look at the existing answers, the main discussion is the safety guarantee obligations of shopping malls. Shouldn’t the mall be given such an obligation? Under what circumstances should it be granted? It still depends on the case, and discussing this issue from the perspective of legal feelings may be able to draw conclusions similar to judicial judgments, but it will not help how to better understand similar cases. Children, shopping malls, glass, these elements are brought together. There have indeed been similar cases in practice, and the court ruled that shopping malls bear 30% of the responsibility. We might as well compare this case with that case, and try to analyze the circumstances under which shopping malls should assume the obligation of safety protection. The case mentioned above occurred in Xuzhou City in 2018. According to the facts ascertained by the court, a mother took her child to eat in a restaurant in a certain supermarket. During this time, the child repeatedly dragged and dragged the sliding door of a vacant merchant next to the restaurant alone, causing the sliding door to keep closing. The mother of the child took the child away when he found it at first, but when the child returned to the sliding door and dragged the sliding door, the mother did not stop it, and instead fed the child with her left foot against the sliding door. In the end, the sliding door shattered during the repeated dragging process of the child due to the uneven force on the door while pushing it with the foot. The logic of the court finding that the supermarket bears 30% responsibility is as follows: Although the sliding doors are installed by tenants, the supermarket is responsible for the management of the sliding doors; for the sliding doors of vacant tenants, the supermarket is not locked, has no special personnel management, and has no warning signs; Therefore, the supermarket has not fulfilled the necessary safety guarantee obligations. From this case, I tried to extract an important element, that is: this glass door belongs to the “vacant tenant”. In other words, if there is no operator to take direct responsibility, then the mall will have to take management responsibility. From the video point of view, the accident seems to have occurred in a normal business, so if it is necessary to assume the obligation of safety protection, it seems that it is more appropriate to assign it to the merchant. Regarding the division of responsibilities between customers and merchants, you can also refer to another case. In 2019, the plaintiff took his daughter into a women’s clothing store on the second floor of Wanda Shopping Mall in Songjiang District, Shanghai, and hit the glass wall inside the store when she left, causing tooth injuries. In this case, the court finally ruled that the defendant (the company that opened the women’s clothing store) should bear 40% of the liability. The court’s argument that the defendant should be held liable mainly divided into two aspects: first, there was no evidence to prove that a warning note was posted on the glass wall at the time of the incident; Remind customers to pay attention to safety. In fact, by putting these two cases out, we can clearly see that the courts tend to assign the main responsibility to the victim in similar cases, but they still rule that the operator (or manager) bears certain responsibilities. Judging from the video of this case, the merchants should be operating normally, so it seems unreasonable to transfer the responsibility to the mall management, just like in the second case described above, Wanda Mall does not bear the responsibility. In addition, I also noticed a detail in the video. There seemed to be peaked caps on the shelves of the merchant involved, presumably it was a sports goods store. In other words, the question here is: Was this basketball brought in by the child himself, or was it a product of the merchant? If it is the merchandise of the merchant, then the merchant should know that the collision of the merchandise they are selling with the glass wall may bring safety hazards. If the customers of the women’s clothing store in the above case hit the glass wall and they must be sentenced to the merchants, then in this case, if the basketball is the store’s merchandise, shouldn’t the merchants be given stronger security obligations? Whether merchants should undertake security obligations should be judged in light of legal provisions and judicial practice. It is meaningless to deny merchants’ security obligations based solely on their hatred for bear children. At the same time, even if the merchant needs to take responsibility, the main responsibility for the accident should still belong to the bear child. If you compare the lawsuits between many hotels and residents, you will find that in some cases the glass door of the hotel bathroom is broken and the guest is injured, and the hotel will even be sentenced to full responsibility. Of course, what proportion of responsibility the manager of a public place should bear depends on the extent of the victim’s fault and whether it can prove evidence. In addition, the security obligations of merchants are not unlimited. It can be seen from past judgments that the courts believe that the responsibilities of merchants are mainly to set up warning signs, arrange employees for management or reminders, and so on. “Guarantee” here refers more to “risk warning and elimination”. For example, in the above two cases, the court held that the shopping mall should lock the glass doors of vacant tenants in order to eliminate the risk of breakage due to dragging by others. , And setting up warning signs and arranging special management by yourself is a kind of risk warning. In other words, security means “providing a safe environment”, not the result of 100% guaranteeing safety. That is to say, the obligation of the shopping mall is that, first of all, its own environment needs to be basically free of hidden safety hazards, and secondly, it is the obligation of prompting for unavoidable risks. As for some respondents, they cited Article 1174 of the Civil Code “The damage was caused by the victim deliberately” to argue that the merchant does not need to bear the responsibility at all. I personally think that it is inappropriate to invoke this provision. This provision is the original Article 27 of the Tort Liability Law. Check the Judgment Documents website. This article is mainly applicable, including but not limited to driving without a license or a violation of regulations causing traffic. Accidents (which are accidents where the victim is allowed to let it happen) or the victim deliberately expanded property losses, etc., seem to be different from the situation in this case. In other words, the victim is at fault for the damage, and it seems that the victim should not be confused with the victim’s intentional damage. Of course, if you follow this line of thinking, there are indeed some extreme situations, and the court may rule that the managers of public places are not liable. As an extended discussion, I will talk more with your friends, maybe it has little to do with this case. The most typical situation above is the question of whether the victim has committed suicide and the manager of the chosen suicide site should bear the responsibility. For example, last year, a patient committed suicide in a hospital in Shenyang. There is no doubt about the incident itself. The patient left a suicide note, and his family members had no objection to the death. The focus of the controversy is whether the screen windows and limit devices of the hospital ward are damaged. If so, does the hospital’s “failure to set up facilities to prevent patients from suicide” violated its security obligations? The court of first instance of the case held that the hospital ward should be equipped with screens and limit devices to prevent patients from falling. If the devices are intact, the deceased should make a noise when they break the safety device and jump off, and no one noticed when the deceased fell. It can be speculated that the hospital’s safety facilities have not played their due role and should bear 5% of the responsibility. The court of second instance overturned the judgment of the first instance and pointed out that the screen windows were installed in the ward for ventilation, not to prevent the patient from falling; the plaintiff did not provide evidence to prove whether the limit device was damaged, and the limit device itself can be changed artificially; There is no legal causal relationship between the damage to the device and the death consequences of the deceased deliberately choosing to commit suicide by falling from a building. Therefore, the court of second instance ruled that the hospital need not be liable for compensation. It is worth noting that the reason for the hospital’s appeal is that it has fulfilled its obligation to ensure safety. The second-instance hospital’s exemption also clearly supports its reason for appeal, and it has not been demonstrated from the perspective of “the victim deliberately caused damage.” In fact, this case once again proves the point I made earlier, that is, the safety guarantee obligations of public place managers are not unlimited. In practice, both the manager and the victim are fully responsible, and there is also a situation where the two parties share the responsibility, which must be discussed in light of the situation of the individual case.

8 months ago

The decorated pot is very big, after all, it fell down the whole, not broken first. For such a large mirror, only a few dots of glue were ordered, and at least it was routed in an s-shape. In addition, is the glue itself qualified? In my opinion, most of the glue used for decoration is basically rubbish. They can buy it for less than three yuan, and the better ones are more than twenty, and there are more expensive ones. Objectively speaking, the glass was not broken by a child. Instead, it fell by itself and broke when it touched the child’s head. This is because the falling object hurts people. The child is just a cause of falling objects, and the absolute reason is that the installation is not firm; if the installation is firm, the end result is that the glass will shatter and then fall, not the entire fall. Although the glass itself is not broken, it falls directly. Down; it means that the strength of the installation is weaker than the glass itself, not whose problem is the construction? Make a hypothesis. If you are directly smashed by the ball, shattered, and fall naturally, then you will not be able to hit people at all. The loss is only a piece of glass, so you can pay for it at the price; or, if the glass bursts with residue, it jumps into the eyes. Even if you are blind, this is purely self-seeking, compensation for glass, and self-care for medical expenses! Reject the so-called humanitarian assistance! (Of course, the premise is that I am not sure where this store is, this self-care is limited to ordinary merchants; if it is a sporting goods store, then the merchant must have relevant safety awareness and corresponding precautions) Then make additional assumptions, this The quality of the construction, even if there are no children involved, a person can change clothes normally, and they can fall off with a careless support. This is a matter of time. The quality of the project is undoubtedly! If in doubt, look for various specifications. Although I don’t understand the specific details, the minimum points are: 1. Either there are fasteners; 2. Either there is no problem with the quality of the glue and the S-line is pasted. This is the minimum quality. Guarantee; 3. Visually inspect that the glue has a certain thickness and has a relatively sharp head. This shows that there is no external pressure to tighten after pasting. It just closes, and there is no glue or no responsibility at all. This kind of fooling a few points, the so-called fixed, is to kill money. Don’t be dissatisfied. Now the well-decorated rooms are glued to the toilet in a similar way, and within a year, they can collapse on their own. If a child crawls on it and falls down before it collapses, who is responsible for this; the child is just a catalyst here, not a determining factor. [The reason why I want to give this example is because it is more universal and avoids the “bear-child” theory. This scenario is suitable for all of us. To some extent, it is easier for adults to turn the toilet! 】Responsibility summary: decoration primary responsibility, decoration supervision secondary responsibility, business joint responsibility, child and guardian secondary responsibility (if it can be proved that the ball does not touch the mirror itself-visual obscuration, video can not be seen-children no responsibility). If the business is only renting and has not been renovated, the landlord shall be jointly and severally liable. There are many similar public incidents. The IKEA cabinet crushes people to death, and the collapse of a bank counter crushes people. It is expected that the relevant policy designated departments can promote a round of mandatory standard implementation, such as: 1. The installation standard of glass mirrors; 2. Any public facilities with an aspect ratio exceeding a certain ratio must be fixedly installed; 3. Individual simple shelves in the supermarket are mandatory Install screws; 4. Individual facilities that easily induce people to lean on (for example, the color steel plate has fenced around the city, and the 20-meter foundation has been dug behind it. If you make it out of paper…), there must be a reminder, There must be reinforcement, there must be a load-bearing standard

8 months ago

Do not discuss the division of responsibilities, only discuss the installation process. We are an advertising company, and sometimes we install background wall glass for certain real estate agencies. The glass we installed is one centimeter thick, the bonding surface is basically gypsum board, the gypsum surface is empty, and the LED light bar must be installed inside, and the empty place behind the glass must be filled with words. The glass we install is usually carried by three or four people, which is very heavy. A small piece on the back is installed and the characters are installed. The back of the glass is covered with structural glue. Several people carry it and install it in place. Make sure that the paste is tight. This will make you go down. It’s a bit hard to pull, because the glue is sucked. We made a few buttons for the surrounding area and fixed the glass firmly, so that the fitting surface should not be empty. After the structural glue inside is dry, remove the buttons. If it is completely dry, you will disassemble the glass, and the glass may not be removed if it is broken, because the structural glue is too strong after it dries. Look again at the glass in this accident. The glue on the back may also be structural glue, but it is obviously not sticky, because you see piles of bulging instead of flat ones. If your bonding surface is compacted, it should be piece by piece, flat. of. The correct installation method is to compact the bonding surface and fix it with a fixing piece. It cannot be loosened, and then remove the fixing piece after the glue is completely dry. Moreover, the glass is not very big. It was not tightly attached when it was installed. It may only be hung up a little bit. The basketball will fall if you touch it. If you don’t touch the children’s basketball, it may fall when you touch it a little while in the past. In summary, there were problems with the installation process and it was not installed at all.

8 months ago

The key point of the division of responsibilities of the shopping mall is whether the installation of the glass wall meets the safety requirements. If it does not meet the safety requirements, the shopping mall must take a lot of responsibility. From the video, the child will fall off after hitting a ball with a ball. The most likely installation is problematic. In addition, the current Internet ethos is that the old and the young are the original sin. Regardless of the facts about the old and the children, first put a bear on the child, the bad guys are getting old, and I am weak and reasonable. I found that many people have no idea how to define the responsibilities of potential risks. They feel that as long as you take the initiative to touch them, you are solely responsible. This is obviously a very subjective and emotional thought. To give a very simple example, you bought a floor-standing fan at home, but one day a child in your family was playful and put his fingers into the net cover and was cut by the fan blade. Whose responsibility do you think is at this time? If according to the above point of view, whoever would put his fingers in the fan, it is obvious that the bear child himself deserves full responsibility. But the actual situation is not the case. It is necessary to check whether the structure of the fan net cover meets the requirements of 3C certification. If it does not meet the requirements of the 3C certification, the merchant is responsible. If the structure is completely ok, then it is the bear child.

8 months ago

Before answering this question, you should clarify a few factual questions. 1. Did the child deliberately smash the glass with a blue ball; 2. From a professional perspective, analyze whether the glass installation meets the standard; 3. Is the child’s guardian fully guarded? responsibility. This is a tort liability dispute. Regarding the issue of liability, let me first talk about my personal opinion. If the mall has not fulfilled the corresponding security obligations, it should be the main responsibility. If the child guardian has not fulfilled the corresponding guardianship responsibility, there will be damage to the consequences. Must be at fault and should bear secondary responsibility. Tort liability is based on fault liability, and the market has not fulfilled the corresponding safety guarantee obligations, and there is considerable fault. I saw that many respondents believed that the shopping mall was not at fault, mainly because the current law did not clearly stipulate the so-called safety guarantee obligations. Many people, including some lawyers, believed that the shopping mall was at fault. Article 1198 of the Civil Code: Operators, managers, or organizers of mass activities in hotels, shopping malls, banks, stations, airports, stadiums, entertainment venues, etc., public places, are not fully safe If it causes damage to others, it shall bear tort liability. The Civil Code clarifies the safety guarantee obligations of public places such as shopping malls, but does not specify specific standards. Based on the relevant cases and articles, I personally believe that the security obligations should be as follows: 1. Statutory obligations. If the law has clear standards for the management of the subject, it shall be implemented in accordance with the law. For example, in another elevator accident, where a crash occurs, the elevator belongs to the country with clear standards for special equipment. 2. Special protection obligations for minors. As an open place of business, it is inevitable for minors to participate in shopping malls. This is what a kind-hearted manager can and should foresee. The corresponding supporting facilities should pay special attention to protecting the safety of minors. 3. General guarantee obligations. As the operator, it is enough to perform the general reminder duty. In this case, the shopping mall should bear a special guarantee obligation. First of all, from the picture, the installation of the glass is only glued together, which is not strong. Even if it is not touched by a child with a blue ball, it will still fall off if other people touch it. Secondly, as a fragile product, it can be directly touched, and there is no corresponding prompt and protective measures. Especially minors can be directly contacted, which poses a greater safety hazard. Finally, management personnel did not discover similar hidden dangers in time, and safety inspections were in place. The mall is at fault. Caused the consequences of the child’s injury, and there is a causal relationship between the fault and the consequences of the damage. The guardian of the child should pay close attention to the safety of the child in public places, and promptly remind the child when fragile items are found. If the corresponding duty of care is not fulfilled, there is a certain fault for the consequences of the damage and should bear the corresponding responsibility. I have watched the video several times, and the child is not directly hitting the glass with the blue ball, so it should not be thought that he is subjective and deliberate, and as a minor, he is aware of the danger. I personally think that Article 1174 of the Civil Code should not be cited as the intentional damage caused by the child. No matter how the responsibilities are divided, the tragedy has already occurred. As parents, they should be optimistic about their children in public places, and avoid unreasonable disasters. As a shopping mall, you should do your duty and fulfill the responsibilities of a good operator to maximize the safety of customers and avoid tragedies.

8 months ago

This “reported” is really talking nonsense with his eyes open. The surveillance video showed that the child threw the ball diagonally down in the air. He kicked the ball forward with his feet in the air. The ball hit the glass wall. The rebound force of the ball slightly showed that there was not much impact, and no adult hits it with a shoulder. . Unless the shoes worn by the child are “Jordan Buckle Broken”, the shopping mall is closed for rectification, check all glass walls, glass layouts and other hidden safety hazards. Don’t talk about this matter what bears the child deserves. I just want to know how powerful a boy can throw a basketball? Can’t the glass wall even hold this impact? If a person slips and hits the glass wall suddenly, does it collapse instantly? Then this is not a glass wall, it is a dangerous wall! Industry insiders said that “it’s not broken, it’s very safe.” It is understood that commercial glass walls are all tempered glass with a thickness of more than 1cm, and the interlayer glue is safer. The staff called it “really solid.” The shopping mall hastened to reorganize and investigate the cut corners and kickbacks when it was built! Before the guardrail on the lakeside of the Shili Long Corridor in Guxian County, a bear kid kicked and fell 215 roots. Could it be possible that he kicked two people? Does it fall if two people rely on the guardrail? I think this is a good thing, and it can be regarded as an exercise of public supervision. This will not happen even if it is pushed and kicked during the acceptance of the project. If the house you live in collapses after being kicked by a bear kid, you won’t be talking coldly here. It would be great to have time to apply for Tesla’s public relations department.

8 months ago

My baby’s mirror was patted and beaten in one day, and there was no sign of falling off. I looked at the back of the mirror in the video, oh, such a big and heavy mirror, the glue dots are not as small as ours. The mirror density is a matter of time sooner or later. Attach my mirror glue point installation diagram (changing the phone photo is missing) and look at the back glue of the merchant; for this density, would you tell me that it is well installed and firm?

8 months ago

In 2003, the Supreme People’s Court issued the “Interpretation on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Personal Injury Compensation Cases”, which established the safety protection obligations of business operators and clarified the scope of obligations and liability limits of the obligors of safety protection. The main content of the rights and obligations is: in a specific service place, the personal and property safety of the right holder should be guaranteed, and the obligor should perform corresponding active or passive inaction obligations for such personal and property safety. The second is that the unsafe services or hardware equipment provided by the operators cause harm to the customers, and they are obliged to prevent the occurrence of dangers. If you hold a reception at home, you should prevent old trees from hurting guests; if all the stairs in the restaurant are not repaired, you should set up a sign or cut off the way to the stairs. The buildings, supporting service facilities and equipment used in the service site shall be safe and reliable. Those with national mandatory standards shall meet the requirements of the mandatory standards. If there are no national mandatory standards, they shall meet the industry standards or meet the safety standards required for such operations. . The key point of determining responsibility is to define whether the firmness of the glass meets the industry standard. I personally think that the business has not fulfilled the obligation of safety protection. Many designs of formal shopping malls need to take children into consideration.

8 months ago

Many people see that the behavior of having children leads to bad results, so they must criticize the “bear children”. Some people have not even watched the video and began to hold their children and their parents accountable. It is too politically correct to criticize “bear children”. I think we can’t just use the results to determine whether a child’s behavior is inappropriate. The key point should be the strength of the relationship between the behavior and the result. For example, if a child shines a laser pointer into the eyes of others and damages the eyesight of others, we can say that he is a bear child, but a child catches a butterfly, and the butterfly flaps its wings when it escapes, causing a tornado in Texas, USA. We can’t Said he was a bear kid. The difference between the two is that the strength of the correlation between behavior and results is quite different. Back to this case. It can be seen from the video that the intensity of the child playing basketball is really very small, and that intensity is really the normal level of an ordinary child of a few years old, but any mirror that is normally installed cannot be blue with that intensity. The ball broke, and the mirror in this case was not broken. The mirror fell from the wall and smashed on the child. This is not the likely result of a child hitting a blue ball slightly. What is more relevant to the result of the mirror falling and breaking is the failure of the installation. The child’s behavior only led to the realization of a very likely event. The relationship between this behavior and the result is extremely low. In this case, it is not the child’s fault. The fault is the installation and construction party.

8 months ago

Don’t blame this bear kid first. First of all, judging from the decoration style in the picture, it feels more like Decathlon. If it is really Decathlon, this is a bit interesting. Decathlon is a store-style sports specialty store. As the name suggests, it is filled with all kinds of sports equipment that bears and children like to play, and at the same time there is a certain degree of danger. Including but not limited to dumbbells, barbells, various balls, bows and arrows, bicycles, fishing rods, etc. At this time, for such a sports equipment store, I think it needs to re-discuss its security obligations. The first is the reminder sign, whether there are corresponding warning signs in front of some products such as dumbbells, yoga balls, etc. that are dangerous for children to play, and in front of the experience area. Before fishing rods, bows and arrows and other highly dangerous equipment, have they been placed in places where children under 8 years old cannot easily reach them and sent shopping guides on duty? Also, is the division of experience area and non-experience area clear and reasonable. After all, basketball is something like that. If I go to Decathlon to buy it, I can’t help but take two shots, even dribbling the ball (dog head) and whether basketball should be. Placed at the cash register area, customers will not be discouraged from testing in the non-experience area. Is there a sign saying please do not use equipment in the non-experience area. Most importantly, in a place full of sports equipment, should there be such a glass wall that falls when hit by a ball and breaks when it falls. Combining with my last time visiting Decathlon, the kids ran around on bicycles. I could shoot arrows in the bow and arrow experience area without restraint. There was no staff nearby, and dumbbell yoga equipment everywhere, and I couldn’t remember if there was any. Warning signs. At the very least, there are indeed great hidden dangers in their family’s security. Finally recommend their football shoes, the price is high

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x