On June 5, 2004, Wei, the owner of a small department store facing the street in Chengdu, Sichuan Province, was preparing to go home for lunch. Just as he stepped out of the shop, something suddenly hit his head, which made him cry. He quickly covered his head with his hand, and blood flowed out of his hand. His wife and son rushed forward to hold him and found his head bruised. At the same time, it was found that the "perpetrator" turned out to be a disc-sized turtle that fell from the upstairs. Wei's department store is on the first floor of the community, with 2 to 7 floors above residential buildings. Turtles must be kept on the balcony by residents living on the second floor to the seventh floor. Wei's son carried a turtle from the second floor to the seventh floor, knocking on doors for neighbors to claim, but no one admitted to raising a turtle. After the alarm, Wei said that he hoped that residents who raised turtles could consciously admit and take responsibility. If no one admits it, he will collectively claim compensation from the residents on the second floor to the seventh floor. Please use the relevant principles of tort law to analyze this case.

analyse

Although this case is simple, it is very complicated in law, mainly involving whether the case is caused by animals or ordinary objects. Article 127 of the General Principles of Civil Law of our country stipulates the tort caused by animals and its liability. In this case, the tortoise caused damage, of course, animals. However, this turtle is not a common animal injury, but the damage caused by falling upstairs, so it is closer to the liability for damages caused by hanging objects and shelving objects falling from buildings as stipulated in Article 126 of the General Principles of Civil Law. The former is no-fault liability, and the latter is fault presumption liability. To make things more complicated, the owner of the tortoise is unknown in this case. At present, who is the owner or manager of these turtles has not been found out. If this can't be found out in the end, there may be six households upstairs who are the owners or managers of the tortoise mentioned by Wei, because this is close to the tort liability of throwing objects from buildings.

How to apply the law and determine the tort liability, my opinion is:

1. The essence of this case is indeed the infringement caused by animals.

In any case, the damage caused by this case is turtles and animals, not other inanimate objects. However, this case is different from the general animal tort. The tort liability for animal injury stipulated in Article 127 of the General Principles of Civil Law refers to the independent injury of animals, because the owner or manager fails to manage the animals well, which makes the animals hurt others because of their nature. In this case, improper animal management led to the fall upstairs, causing damage to others. Nevertheless, this case is caused by animals after all, and it is reasonable to apply the rules stipulated in Article 127 of the General Principles of Civil Law and the principle of no-fault liability to determine the tort liability. Therefore, as long as the behavior of the owner or manager of the tortoise is illegal and causes damage, and there is a causal relationship between them, it constitutes tort liability.

2. However, this case is different from the general tort caused by animals.

Therefore, when determining its tort liability, we should refer to the provisions of Article 126 of the General Principles of Civil Law, that is, the tortoise is damaged by falling on a building, so it can be treated according to the rule that falling objects cause damage to people. If it is confirmed who owns or manages the falling turtle, then the owner or manager shall bear tort liability to the victim. In this regard, although there is no more important significance, it is instructive to the following opinions.

If the police can't determine the owner or manager of the tortoise after investigation, then this case is very similar to the tort liability of throwing objects from buildings.

In a case of tort liability for throwing objects from buildings decided by Chongqing court, someone threw an ashtray at a tall building, causing injuries to passers-by. It's impossible to determine who did it in the building. Therefore, in order to ensure the realization of the victim's claim for damages, the court found that the person in the building who could not prove that he had not committed this act was jointly and severally liable for compensation. This is the responsibility rule for throwing objects in buildings. Although many people object to the rules established in this case, the case law holds that such rules are reasonable and fair from the perspective of protecting victims. Of course, this rule is not stipulated in the tort liability of personal injury caused by the object stipulated in the Supreme People's Court's Judicial Interpretation of Personal Injury Compensation, because it is controversial. If the owner or manager of the damaged tortoise cannot be found, it can be determined that the tortoise must be owned or managed by a resident from the second floor to the seventh floor, and it cannot be someone else. Therefore, in order to protect the victim's claim for damages, that is, according to the principle of sympathy for the weak in civil law, we can refer to the rules of damage caused by throwing objects from buildings, and determine that six households on the second to seventh floors are jointly and severally liable for Wei's damage. If any of them can prove that they have never kept turtles, that is, it is impossible to conduct such improper management behavior, they can be exempted from their responsibilities.

conclusion

It can be seen that there are no ready-made rules to apply to the complexity of the applicable law in this case. So we have to go through these complicated processes to determine. As for the determination of its liability for damages, it is relatively simple and can be determined according to the general criteria for personal injury compensation, and there is no special provision.