Case of Dispute over Liability for Violation of Safety Guarantee Obligations between Liaoning Province Construction Investment Group Co., Ltd. and Zhang Mouqin and Zhang Mouchen

Keywords: Tort liability; violation of the duty of safety assurance

Counseling Attorney: Cao Yuanjun, Han Jia

Basic Facts of the Case:

On July 28, 2017, on a certain section of the Shenhai Expressway, driver Li was driving a small passenger car with license plate Liao AXXXXX from south to north when he collided with Zhang Chencen, who was crossing the expressway from east to west in the same lane. The collision resulted in damage to both vehicles and the death of Zhang Chencen at the scene. According to the investigation conducted by the First Highway Traffic Police Detachment of the Liaoyang City Public Security Traffic Police Brigade, Zhang Chencen was found entirely responsible for the accident, while Li bore no responsibility. Before his death, Zhang Chencen lived on the west side of the expressway, and the contracted farmland he cultivated was located on the east side. Approximately 200 meters from the accident site, there was an underpass used by residents on both sides of the expressway for their daily commutes. The section of the Shenhai Expressway where the accident occurred was under the management of the defendant. Plaintiffs Zhang Qinqin and Zhang Chencen filed a lawsuit against the defendant, arguing that since there was no protective fence along the east side of the expressway at the accident site, this posed a safety hazard, and the defendant had failed to take appropriate safety measures.

In the first-instance court’s ruling in this case, it was held that pedestrians are prohibited from entering expressways, and if the victim bears any fault for the occurrence of the damage, they shall bear the responsibility themselves. The first-instance judgment dismissed the plaintiff’s claim, and the second-instance court dismissed the appeal and upheld the original judgment.

Case Highlights:

Article 1198 of the Civil Code defines the entities subject to the duty of safety assurance as follows: “Operators, managers of business premises and public places—including hotels, shopping malls, banks, stations, airports, sports venues, entertainment venues, and other similar establishments—as well as organizers of mass events.” In disputes arising from breaches of the duty of safety assurance, the focal point of contention often centers on whether the obligated party has indeed breached its duty of safety assurance, as well as on the elements constituting tort liability, namely fault, causal relationship, and the occurrence of actual harm.

This case primarily involves two issues: first, whether the defendant fulfilled its duty of safety protection; and second, whether the victim was at fault. In this case, based on the evidence submitted by the defendant, there is a culvert less than 200 meters from the crime scene, which is used for pedestrian passage. As a person with full civil capacity, the plaintiff should have been aware that pedestrians are prohibited from entering the highway. The plaintiff failed to exercise due care for his own safety and thus bore some degree of fault. Moreover, it was precisely this fault on the part of the plaintiff that led to the occurrence of the damage. The court of first instance dismissed the plaintiff’s claim, and the court of second instance upheld the original judgment after rejecting the appeal. The lead attorney in this case formulated a comprehensive and meticulous litigation strategy, taking into account various factors including legal provisions, industry standards, common social norms, and specific circumstances of the case. After the second-instance judgment became final, both parties accepted the ruling and ceased further litigation, achieving positive legal and social outcomes.

Typical significance:

This case is a dispute over liability arising from a breach of the duty to ensure safety. In cases involving breaches of the duty to ensure safety, operators and managers of public places or organizers of mass events may bear either direct liability or supplementary liability. According to Article 1198 of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China, whether the entity bearing the duty to ensure safety assumes direct liability or supplementary liability, both are predicated on its failure to fulfill such duty. This means that if the entity fulfilling the duty to ensure safety has indeed fulfilled its obligations, it may be exempted from liability. In disputes over breaches of the duty to ensure safety, whether the entity has fulfilled its safety obligations should be determined comprehensively based on the following aspects: First, statutory standards. If laws and regulations directly specify the content of the duty to ensure safety, the provisions of these laws and regulations shall serve as the standard and basis for judgment. Second, industry standards. When laws and regulations do not explicitly provide for such obligations, the duty to ensure safety should meet the usual standard of care expected within the same industry. Third, contractual standards. If a contract stipulates that one party has a duty to ensure the safety of the other party, then the duty to ensure safety arises from the terms of the contract itself. Fourth, the standard of a prudent manager. If no specific standard is prescribed by law and the above-mentioned aspects fail to provide a clear answer, the standard of a prudent manager may be applied to determine the obligation.

In this case, regarding the defendant—Liaoning Province Construction Investment Group Co., Ltd.—its fulfillment of its highway maintenance obligations was substantiated by the defendant’s submission of photographs showing guardrails along the highway’s roadside and median barriers, as well as evidence demonstrating that a culvert located less than 200 meters from the accident site serves the daily travel needs of residents living on both sides of the highway. In the absence of explicit statutory provisions, these pieces of evidence sufficiently established that the defendant had indeed fulfilled its duty to ensure safety. Relying on the factual circumstances of the case and grounded in legal principles, the defense attorney successfully reversed the unfavorable situation for the defendant. Ultimately, the court dismissed the plaintiff’s claims, thereby safeguarding the legitimate rights and interests of the client.

Lawyer's Insights ：

Highways are fully enclosed, dedicated roadways designed for high-speed vehicular traffic. At each entrance to a highway, signs clearly indicate that pedestrians and non-motorized vehicles are prohibited from entering. Nevertheless, instances of pedestrians and non-motorized vehicles illegally entering highways still occur from time to time. In such cases, previous court rulings have generally held the highway management company liable. However, the liability of the highway management company cannot be considered strict liability. If the highway management company has fulfilled its duties and exercised due diligence, and there is no direct causal link between its actions and the injury sustained by the victim, then the victim should bear responsibility themselves. The judgments handed down by the courts should serve as a proper guide for the public in observing laws and regulations, while also taking into account the broader social and ethical implications of the rulings. This case will also provide valuable reference for future judgments in similar situations.