Issue
Whose conduct was a substantial factor in bringing about the death of the decedents and who should take the responsibilities of the decedents?
Analysis
According to the facts, the substantial factor in bringing about the decedents’ injuries is that the use of the illegal straight platoon-type gas water heaters, which caused the decedents Carbon Monoxide Poisoning. Therefore, the question then is whose conduct was a substantial factor or proximate cause in bringing about the death of the decedent. We can analyze as following:
First of all, the General Principles of Civil Law of the People's Republic of China, article 11, “A citizen aged 18 or over shall be an adult with full capacity for civil conduct, may independently engage in civil activities, and has the full civil capacity.” The victims in this case had reached the 18-year-old, they have full civil capacity, and they should bear part of the civil liability.
Second, because they had full civil capacity and this case happened on Friday night which is part of the weekend, however, school didn’t have any conduct to due to this accident; thus the school (D1) shouldn’t bear the responsibility.
Third, the contract law the provisions of paragraph 1, article 10: "entering into a contract, the parties have written, oral forms and other form." Therefore, oral negotiation lease contract is protected by law. The victims hired a room and payoff the rent, in actually, their behavior that equal the contract. According to “The provisions of the Contract Law of the People's Republic of China, article 216, “in accordance with the contract, the lessor shall deliver the lease item to the lessee, and in the lease term, keep the lease item fit for the prescribed purpose.” In other words, the landlord has the obligation to ensure that house which rental for tenant conform to the safety of living standards, not a security risk, especially in water, electricity, gas and so on. If rental housing unsafe, then the accident happened, even if tenant haves fault in the accident, the landlord will bear the responsibility. Obviously, the landlord doesn't fulfill this obligation; he/she provided the illegal straight platoon-type gas water heaters which already prohibit using by government, it violated the state rules. So the landlord can’t shirk his/her responsibility in this accident.
Last but no least, from October 1, 1999, the government decided to prohibit the production of straight platoon-type gas water heaters. Since May 1, 2000 the government decided to prohibit the sale of the straight platoon-type gas water heaters. If the landlord bought the straight platoon-type gas water heater before 2000, which produced before 1999, neither the manufacturer nor the distributor of the straight platoon-type gas water heater who should bear the responsibility. However, according to the actual situation, the manufacturer and distributor maybe also should bear a part of responsibility. In other words, the landlord is only the party at fault. According to a number of situations, there have a variety of analysis as following:
If the manufacturer and the distributor who have responsibilities in this case. According to the Tort Liability Law of the People's Republic of China, article 47, “knowing that the existence of deficiencies, still produce, sales, resulting in death or serious health damage, the victims shall have the right to request the appropriate punitive damages.” And The product quality law of article 49 stipulates: "the production, sales do not accord with safeguarding human health and safety of person and property of the national standards and trade standards of products, shall be ordered to stop production, sale, confiscate the illegal production, sales of products and impose illegal production, marketing products three times the value of a fine; the illegal income and concurrently impose confiscate the illegal income, if the circumstances are serious, shall revoke the business license; if the case constitutes a crime, shall be investigated for criminal responsibility." In this situation, the manufacturer and the distributor both should bear the punitive damages.
Summary
To sum up, under the circumstances of this case, we conclude that decedent’s injuries were not the any acts of negligence by school, rather, the decisions and conduct of the landlord were the substantial factor that brought about the injuries. The landlord breached the rules of state that installed the illegal straight platoon-type gas water heaters, the landlord violated the safety guarantee obligation, and he/she shall bear the compensatory damages of the civil liability. However, the manufacturer has the strict liability to provide a legal product for their customers. According to the actual situation, if the manufacturer and the distributor’s conduct were proximate cause in bringing about the death of the decedent, according to the comparative negligence, besides landlord all they shall bear the responsibilities on the basis of their respective proportions of negligence.
