Your current location >> Cases
Woman Blames Metro for Screen Door Injury But Loses Appeal
[2019-03-06]

A passenger surnamed Ge tried to get on a Metro train when the platform screen doors were already closing, and got injured on the head. Later, Ge sued to the court, requesting Shanghai Metro No.4 Operation Co., Ltd (hereinafter referred to as "Metro No.4 Company") to make a compensation. Recently, Shanghai No.3 Intermediate People's Court tried the case at second instance and determined that Metro No.4 Company, as a manager of public place, had no fault in fulfilling its duty of safety protection and Ge failed to perform her own duty of care.

[Case Review]

Around 4: 00 pm on June 6, 2018, Ge wanted to take Metro Line 8 at People's Square Station and attempted to dash into a train while the doors were closing. Her head became stuck between the platform screen doors and she was injured in the head. Ge argued that she didn¡¯t hear the buzzer when the doors were closing. She was diagnosed as having a head trauma. Later, Ge sued to the court, requesting Metro No.4 Company to compensate for the medical expenses of more than RMB 12,000 yuan and food cost of RMB 110 yuan during her hospitalization.

The metro surveillance video showed that the platform screen doors began to close as Ge was trying to get on the train. Meanwhile, the passengers waiting at the adjacent doors stepped back. A mobile phone video provided by Ge also showed that the buzzer rang several times before the metro doors finally closed.

During the trial, Metro No.4 Company acknowledged the authenticity of the video and stated that when the incident occurred, the indicator light above the door was in normal condition and the door was working properly. Ge stated that she didn't hear the buzzer that day, the indicator light above that door was on but without flashing, and the opening and closing time of doors weren't fixed, which were mainly to blame for her injury.

[Case Study]   

The court of first instance held that:

Ge was still trying to get on the train when the platform screen doors were already closing while other passengers had stepped back to wait for the next one; the indicator light above the door was in proper working order when the incident happened and there are security warning marks posted on the doors; Ge also admitted that it was not that there was no buzzing but that she didn't hear the buzzing. Therefore, Ge didn't have adequate evidence to prove that Metro No.4 Company failed to fulfill its duty of safety protection within a reasonable scope. On the contrary, it was she that failed to perform her own duty of care.  

Ge also argued that the opening and closing time of the metro doors was too short, and she wouldn't have injured if they stayed open for another 1 to 2 seconds. However, metro operations shall comply with relevant codes and regulations. If the doors can¡¯t close before all the passengers get on or off, it will affect the punctuality and safety of metro lines.

The court of first instance dismissed Ge's claim accordingly.

Refusing to accept the first instance judgment, Ge appealed to Shanghai No.3 Intermediate People's Court. She argued that when the screen door began to close, part of her body had already passed through; the main reason for the accident was that the indicator light didn't flash when the screen door was closing; Metro No.4 Company failed to fulfill its duty of safety warning and safety protection as it didn't adopt measures to speed up passenger flow in the crowded subway station.

After the trial, Shanghai No.3 Intermediate People's Court held that:

If Ge believed that Metro No.4 Company shall be liable for compensation, she shall bear the burden of proof for the fact that Metro No.4 Company failed to fulfill its duty of safety, resulting in her injury.

Ge argued that Metro No.4 Company shall be held liable mainly because the indicator light didn't flash when the door was closing and there was no buzzing to remind the passengers. However, the evidences provided by both sides in the first instance showed that Ge got injured because she attempted to get on the metro train by force when the screen door had already begun to close. She thought that she might cut it close and not get caught between the screen doors.

Besides, the court of first instance makes the proper decision to determine that Metro No.4 Company had no fault in fulfilling its duty of safety protection as a manager of public place because such decision is based on sufficient factual and legal grounds.    

 

[Relevant Laws]

1. Tort Law of the People's Republic of China

Article 37 The manager of a public venue such as hotel, shopping center, bank, station or entertainment place or the organizer of a mass activity shall assume the tort liability for any harm caused to another person as the result of his failure to fulfill the duty of safety protection.

If the harm to another person is caused by a third party, the third party shall assume the tort liability; and the manager or organizer, if failing to fulfill the duty of safety protection, shall assume the corresponding complementary liability.

2. Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China

Article 64 A party shall have the burden to provide evidence for its claims.
...

3. Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China

Article 170 After trial, the people's court of second instance shall handle appeal cases according to the following different circumstances:

(1) Dismissing an appeal and sustaining the original judgment or ruling in the form of a judgment or ruling, if the original judgment or ruling is clear in fact finding and correct in application of law;

...

 

(Author: Niu Bei, Shanghai No.3 Intermediate People's Court)

>> Chinese Version
The English version of this article, which is translated from the Chinese version by CTPC, is for reference only and shall be subject to the corresponding contents on the Chinese webpage.
Copyright @2014 Shanghai High People's Court, All Rights Reserved.