>>>welcome visitor, haven't logged in. Login
Subscribe Now Contact us  
Font Size:  A A A Search “Fabao” Window English 中文 = 简体  繁体
  Favorite   DownLoad   Print
 
Gao Ziyu v. Nanjing Metro Group Co., Ltd. (Dispute over Right of Health)
高子玉诉南京地铁集团有限公司健康权纠纷案
【法宝引证码】
  • Type of Dispute: Civil-->Personality Rights
  • Legal document: Judgment
  • Judgment date: 11-15-2013
  • Procedural status: Trial at First Instance
  • Source: SPC Gazette, Issue 9, 2015 (No. 227)

Gao Ziyu v. Nanjing Metro Group Co., Ltd. (Dispute over Right of Health)
(Dispute over Right of Health)
高子玉诉南京地铁集团有限公司健康权纠纷案
Gao Ziyu v. Nanjing Metro Group Co., Ltd. (Dispute over Right of Health) 高子玉诉南京地铁集团有限公司健康权纠纷案
[Judgment Abstract] [裁判摘要]
The obligation of safety protection is a statutory obligation of any public places or public facility manager. The safety protection obligor should not only ensure the safety of the places or facilities under its management, but give necessary warnings, instructions, and notices to persons in such place or using such facilities and provide them with necessary assistance, so as to prevent any harm to such persons. A metro company mainly controls passengers' entrance and exit of the subway station by means of automatic ticket checking on ticket gates. If the metro company fails to make rational arrangements and conduct proper management for ticket-free passengers and their entourages on how to safely pass the ticket gate and the passengers get injured because they do not know the safe passage way, it should be determined that as the manager of a public place, the metro company fails to perform the obligation of safety protection and it should assume the corresponding tort liability for passengers' losses. 安全保障义务是公共场所或公共设施管理人的一种法定义务,安全保障义务人既要保障其管理的场所或设施的安全性,也要对在场所内活动或使用设施的人进行必要的警告、指示说明、通知及提供必要的帮助,以预防侵害的发生。地铁公司主要以自动检票闸机控制乘客的进出站,如果地铁公司未对免票乘客及其随行人员如何安全通过闸机进行合理的安排和管理,由此导致乘客在无法得知安全通行方式的情况下受伤,则应认定地铁公司作为公共场所的管理者未尽到安全保障义务,应当对乘客的损失承担相应的侵权责任。
Plaintiff: Gao Ziyu, male, 69 years old, Chinese Han, resides in Nanjing City, Jiangsu Province. 原告:高子玉。
Defendant: Nanjing Metro Group Co., Ltd., the domicile of which is Zhongshan Road, Xuanwu District, Nanjing City, Jiangsu Province. 被告:南京地铁集团有限公司。
Plaintiff Gao Ziyu filed a lawsuit with the People's Court of Xuanwu District, Nanjing City, Jiangsu Province against defendant Nanjing Metro Group Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Metro Company”) for dispute over right of health. 原告高子玉因与被告南京地铁集团有限公司(以下简称地铁公司)发生健康权纠纷,向江苏省南京市玄武区人民法院提起诉讼。
Plaintiff Gao Ziyu alleged that: On the afternoon of June 29, 2012, plaintiff took the subway at Xinjiekou Station. In the process of plaintiff's swiping the card at the ticket gate and entering the station, the ticket gate suddenly closed and plaintiff's abdomen was clamped, causing the closed abdominal trauma, acute peritonitis, and ileal perforation of plaintiff. This accident made plaintiff hospitalized for treatment and caused great pains and economic losses to him. Plaintiff repeatedly negotiated with defendant Metro Company regarding the compensation, but such negotiations all failed. Therefore, he filed a lawsuit with the court and requested the court to order that defendant should pay him the medical expenses of 36,362.67 yuan, the nursing expenses of 12,000 yuan, the food subsidy during hospital stay of 1,060 yuan, the nutrition expenses of 1,800 yuan, the travelling expenses of 800 yuan, the disability compensation of 59,354 yuan, and the compensation for mental distress of 10,000 yuan. 原告高子玉诉称:2012年6月29日下午原告从南京市新街口地铁站乘坐地铁,原告在进站闸机口刷卡后进站的过程中,闸机突然关闭,夹住了原告腹部,使原告腹部闭合伤、急性腹膜炎、回肠穿孔。此次事故造成原告住院治疗,给原告造成很大的痛苦和经济损失。原告多次与被告地铁公司协商赔偿事宜,未能协商成功,故诉至法院,请求判令被告赔偿原告医疗费36 362.67元、护理费12 000元、住院伙食补助费1060元、营养费1800元、交通费800元、残疾赔偿金59 354元、精神损害抚慰金10 000元。
Defendant Metro Company contended that: When swiping the ticket card and entering the subway station with a child, plaintiff Gao Ziyu carelessly ran into the closed ticket gate and got injured due to his negligence. Since plaintiff violated defendant's regulations on taking the subway, defendant assumed no liability for plaintiff's injury; and defendant did not accept the amount of partial losses claimed by plaintiff. Therefore, defendant requested the court to dismiss the claims of plaintiff. 被告地铁公司辩称:原告高子玉携带儿童刷卡进站,因疏忽大意不慎撞上已经闭合的闸机导致受伤,原告违反了被告关于乘坐地铁的规定,故被告对原告的受伤不承担责任;被告对原告主张的部分损失的金额不予认可。请求法院驳回原告的诉讼请求。
BASIC FACTS 
After a trial, the People's Court of Xuanwu District, Nanjing City, Jiangsu Province found that: 江苏省南京市玄武区人民法院经审理查明:
On June 29, 2012, by carrying a ticket-free child, plaintiff Gao Ziyu took the subway at Xinjiekou Station subordinated to defendant Metro Company. When plaintiff swiped the ticket card for entering the station, his abdomen came into contact with the fan-shaped doors of the entrance ticket gate and he got injured. On the same day, he was sent to Nanjing General Hospital of Nanjing Military Command of the PRC (hereinafter referred to as the “General Hospital of Military Command”) for treatment. It was found upon diagnosis that plaintiff suffered from closed abdominal trauma, acute diffuse peritonitis, and ileal perforation and received the treatment of creation of double stomas for ileum. Plaintiff was diagnosed and treated in the General Hospital of Military Command and Nanjing Hospital of T.C.M, and he was hospitalized for a total of 53 days. Since plaintiff's claims of compensation for medical expenses and other costs were not satisfied, he filed a lawsuit with the People's Court of Xuanwu District. 2012年6月29日,原告高子玉携带一名免票儿童在被告地铁公司所属新街口地铁站乘车,原告刷卡进站时腹部与进站闸机扇门接触后受伤,当日即到中国人民解放军南京军区南京总医院(以下简称军区总院)就诊。经诊断,原告系腹部闭合伤、急性弥漫性腹膜炎、回肠穿孔等疾病,施行回肠双造口等治疗。原告在军区总院、南京市中医院诊治,共计住院治疗53天。因向被告主张医疗费等费用未果,原告遂诉至法院。
In the trial, upon application of plaintiff, the People's Court of Xuanwu District commissioned Nanjing Jinling Judicial Expertise Office to conduct judicial expertise on the degree of plaintiff's disability, the nursing period, and the nutrition period. On May 7, 2013, Nanjing Jinling Judicial Expertise Office issued a written opinion on judicial expertise. According to the written opinion, less than one half of plaintiff's small intestine was removed, which constituted grade 9 disability and it may be appropriate that the nursing period was 120 days and the nutrition period was 120 days after plaintiff's injury. 审理中经原告申请,法院依法委托南京金陵司法鉴定所对原告的伤残等级和护理期限、营养期限进行司法鉴定,南京金陵司法鉴定所于2013年5月7日出具了司法鉴定意见书,鉴定意见为:原告小肠切除小于二分之一构成九级伤残,护理期限以伤后120日为宜,营养期限以伤后120日为宜。
JUDGMENT'S REASONING 
The issues in the trial of first instance of this case were (1) whether defendant Metro Company should assume the compensation liability for plaintiff Gao Ziyu's injury; and (2) the authenticity of various expenses arising from plaintiff's injury. 本案一审的争议焦点为:一、被告地铁公司是否应当对原告高子玉的损伤承担赔偿责任。二、原告因本次受伤发生的各项费用的真实性。
1. Whether defendant Metro Company should assume the compensation liability for plaintiff Gao Ziyu's injury 一、被告地铁公司是否应当对原告高子玉的损伤承担赔偿责任。
Plaintiff Gao Ziyu alleged that: Defendant Metro Company failed to provide him with proper guidance when he entered the station for taking the subway. When entering the station with a ticket-free child and normally passing the ticket gate, he got injured. As the owner and manager of such ticket gate, defendant should assume the tort liability. 原告高子玉认为:被告地铁公司未对原告进站乘车进行恰当的引导,原告在进站时携带免票儿童正常通过闸机时被闸机夹伤,被告作为闸机的所有者和管理者应当承担侵权责任。
Gao Ziyu also submitted the following evidence: 原告高子玉还提交了如下证据:
(1) The supervisory video recording on June 29, 2012, which recorded the process of swiping the ticket card and entering the station by Gao Ziyu and the child he carried with him as follows: After plaintiff swiped the card, the child first ran through the ticket gate and plaintiff closely followed the child and intended to pass the ticket gate, but he immediately drew back after coming into contact with the fan-shaped doors of the ticket gate and was blocked. Plaintiff failed to pass the ticket gate. Due to vague recording images, it could only be seen that plaintiff's abdomen came into contact with the fan-shaped doors of the ticket gate, but it failed to identify whether plaintiff's body was clamped by the fan-shaped doors or whether plaintiff ran into such doors. 1.2012年6月29日监控录像。该录像记录了原告高子玉与其携带的儿童刷卡进站的过程:原告刷卡后,其同行的儿童率先跑步通过闸机,原告跟随该儿童身后欲通过闸机,但与闸机扇门接触被阻挡后随即后退,未能通过闸机。因录像画面模糊,仅可看清原告腹部与闸机扇门接触,无法分辨是扇门夹住原告身体还是原告撞上扇门。
(2) The hard copy of a news report of Yangtse Evening Post titled “A Pregnant Woman's Stomach Clamped by Ticket Gate When Entering the Station”, with the main content that the stomach of a pregnant woman was clamped due to her slow movement when she passed the ticket gate. 2.2006年9月29日扬子晚报新闻报道打印件,标题为《孕妇进站被闸机夹住肚子》的报道,主要内容为一孕妇在进闸机时由于动作缓慢被夹住腹部。
(3) The entrance supervisory video recording on October 16, 2013 of the station where the ticket gate causing Gao Ziyu's injury was located, which was applied by plaintiff Gao Ziyu to be taken by the court, recorded that one adult and one child entered the station at the same time. After the adult swiped the ticket card and passed the fan-shaped doors, the fan-shaped doors closed close to the head of the child, who did not pass the doors behind the adult. Gao Ziyu used evidence (2) and (3) to prove that the fan-shaped doors of defendant's ticket gate were likely to clamp passengers. 3.原告高子玉申请法院调取的2013年10月16日原告受伤所在的闸机的进站监控录像,该录像记录了一名成年人和一儿童同时进站,成年人在前刷卡进去后,儿童在后面尚未通过扇门时,扇门紧贴着儿童的头部关闭。原告高子玉以证据2、3证明被告的闸机扇门有可能夹住乘客。
...... 被告地铁公司认为,在被告地铁站的每个售票窗口均有乘坐地铁的告示,告示中明确禁止儿童单独进站乘坐地铁,本案中所涉的闸机工作原理为刷一次票闸机扇门开启、关闭各一次,成年人陪同儿童通过地铁闸机应符合上述告示的要求和闸机功能的要求。乘客携带儿童正常乘坐地铁时只要符合最寻常的对儿童的监管义务即可安全通过地铁闸机。证据1显示原告高子玉同行儿童走出闸机时原告还未通过闸机扇门,原告未能对儿童妥善监管,儿童单独通过闸机后,原告为了追逐儿童不慎撞上闸机,故原告受伤是因其本人疏忽大意造成,被告对原告受伤的损失不应承担赔偿责任。被告对证据2的真实性不予认可。被告认为证据3证明了地铁闸机不会夹伤人,同时认为该录像反映的情况与原告所遭遇的情况不具有相似性,没有可比性。
 被告地铁公司提交了如下证据:
 ......

Dear visitor, you are attempting to view a subscription-based section of lawinfochina.com. If you are already a subscriber, please login to enjoy access to our databases. If you are not a subscriber, you can pay for a document through Online Pay and read it immediately after payment.
An entity user can apply for a trial account or contact us for your purchase.
Tel: +86 (10) 82689699, +86 (10) 82668266 ext. 153
Mobile: +86 13311570712
Fax: +86 (10) 82668268
E-mail: database@chinalawinfo.com

 
您好:您现在要进入的是北大法律英文网会员专区。
如您是我们英文用户可直接 登录,进入会员专区查询您所需要的信息;如您还不是我们 的英文用户;您可通过网上支付进行单篇购买,支付成功后即可立即查看本篇内容;
单位用户可申请试用或者来电咨询购买。
Tel: +86 (10) 82689699, +86 (10) 82668266 ext. 153
Mobile: +86 13311570712
Fax: +86 (10) 82668268
E-mail:database@chinalawinfo.com
     
     
【法宝引证码】        北大法宝en.pkulaw.cn
Message: Please kindly comment on the present translation.
 
Confirmation Code:
Click image to reset code
 
  Translations are by lawinfochina.com, and we retain exclusive copyright over content found on our website except for content we publish as authorized by respective copyright owners or content that is publicly available from government sources.

Due to differences in language, legal systems, and culture, English translations of Chinese law are for reference purposes only. Please use the official Chinese-language versions as the final authority. Lawinfochina.com and its staff will not be directly or indirectly liable for use of materials found on this website.

We welcome your comments and suggestions, which assist us in continuing to improve the quality of our materials as we dynamically expand content.
 
Home | About us | Disclaimer | Chinese