165438+1On the morning of October 20th, the second trial of this case was held in Beijing No.1 Intermediate People's Court. On the same day, the court made a final judgment, dismissed the appeal and upheld the original judgment, that is, McDonald's Company, Xilongduo Company and Agriculture, Industry and Commerce Company were liable for 45%, 45% and 10% respectively.
Case review: The fire burned for more than 8 hours.
20131010/at 2 o'clock in the morning, the battery of an electric bicycle in the dessert operation room of McDonald's Yangzhuang restaurant broke down during charging, which led to a fire in Xilongduo Shopping Center. The fire lasted more than 8 hours, with an area of over 3,800 square meters. The direct property loss caused by the fire is estimated to be 65,430 yuan.
20 16 12, the criminal part of the fire was pronounced. The court sentenced two McDonald's store leaders and three leaders related to Xilongduo Shopping Center to commit serious accidents, and sentenced five people to fixed-term imprisonment ranging from 2 years to 3 years and 6 months respectively.
McDonald's Company paid compensation of 2 1.87 million yuan in advance.
2065438+200465438+1On October 22nd, Beijing Municipal Administration of Work Safety made "Shilongduo Shopping Plaza in Shijingshan District" 10? 1 1 Bulletin of Major Fire Accidents (hereinafter referred to as the Bulletin), it is determined that Beijing McDonald's Food Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as McDonald's Company) and Beijing Xilongduo Shopping Center Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Xilongduo Company) are mainly responsible for the occurrence of the fire, and Beijing Shijingshan District Agricultural and Industrial Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Agricultural and Industrial Company) bears certain responsibilities.
After the accident, in order to properly solve the compensation work of small businesses, McDonald's Company paid various expenses in advance.
It is understood that after the fire accident, the Shijingshan court handled 35 1 case of property damage compensation filed by small merchants in Xilongduo Shopping Plaza against McDonald's, Xilongduo Company and Agriculture, Industry and Commerce Company through mediation or judgment. In 298 cases, the three parties were jointly responsible, and the compensation amount was14.64 million yuan, and this part of the money was McDonald's. There are 5 1 piece of responsibilities shared by McDonald's and Xilongduo Company, and McDonald's Company has paid compensation of 4.73 million yuan. There are two other responsibilities shared by McDonald's and Xilongduo Company, and the responsibilities are borne by the agriculture, industry and commerce company itself. Among them, McDonald's Company and Xilongduo Company each pay more than 260,000 yuan, in addition to legal fees and evaluation fees, McDonald's Company has * *.
The fire recovered after four years.
After the first payment, four years after the fire broke out, McDonald's Company sued Xilongduo Company, shopping center owner Xilongduo Company, agriculture and industry company and Beijing Ridongsheng Investment Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Ridongsheng Company) to Shijingshan Court.
McDonald's believes that the above three parties are all responsible for the occurrence of the fire accident, and should bear the compensation, evaluation fees and legal fees paid by McDonald's, totaling 2 1.87 million yuan.
The Shijingshan court, in combination with the determination of the cause of the fire accident and some effective judgment documents, found that McDonald's Company and Xilongduo Company each bear 45% of the responsibility, and the agricultural and industrial company bears 10% of the responsibility. The court did not support McDonald's company's claim for compensation for the fire accident, because the Circular did not determine that the company was responsible for the fire accident.
On August 7, 20 17, Shijingshan court made a first-instance judgment, and ruled that Xilongduo Company and Agriculture, Industry and Commerce Company paid McDonald's Company more than 9.9 million yuan and 16 1 10,000 yuan respectively.
After the verdict was pronounced in the first instance, Xilongduo Company and Agriculture, Industry and Commerce Company refused to accept the appeal.
At the scene of the second trial: the appellant said that the responsibility should not be determined according to the notification.
165438+1At 9: 30 am on October 20th, the second trial of the case was held in No.1 Intermediate People's Court. It is reported that the recovery after civil compensation for this major fire accident belongs to the end of a series of lawsuits triggered by this fire, and it is also the largest case in the series of lawsuits triggered by this fire.
Xilongduo Company and Agriculture, Industry and Commerce Company appealed that the proportion of liability for accident compensation was unreasonable, and the notice should not be used as the basis for determining civil liability in this case. Request to cancel the first-instance judgment, and change the judgment according to law to reject all the claims of McDonald's company.
In court, Xilongduo Company claimed that the facts of the first-instance judgment were unclear. Both the fire department and the safety supervision department believe that the direct cause of the fire is the electrical failure of the battery in McDonald's restaurant. The disposal of McDonald's related personnel, as well as its own light boxes and billboards, are directly related to the fire accident in the early stage and during the fire spread.
In addition, Xilongduo Company believes that "Xilongduo Company has only indirect and secondary responsibilities for this fire, and 45% of the responsibilities are too heavy, and McDonald's Company bears the main responsibility."
The agriculture, industry and commerce company believes that it does not assume any responsibility. "We are property owners, and the fire safety of shopping centers should be the specific responsibility of the actual lessors and operators. The notification made by the administrative organ should not be used as the basis for dividing civil liability. "
Appellees McDonald's and Rishengdong Company believed that the first-instance judgment was correct and requested the court to uphold the original judgment.
After the court debate, the presiding judge asked the four parties whether they agreed to mediation, and they all agreed. Then in the subsequent mediation, the differences between the four parties were too great to reach an agreement, and the judge announced that mediation would no longer be conducted.
Final judgment: the appeal was dismissed and the judgment of the first instance was upheld.
After recess 15 minutes, in the morning 1 1, the court pronounced the case in the second instance. The court held that the first-instance judgments of Xilongduo Company and Agriculture, Industry and Commerce Company improperly divided the responsibilities of the responsible persons. After trial, it is considered that there is nothing wrong with the determination of liability by the court of first instance, that is, McDonald's Company and Xilongduo Company each bear 45% of the liability, and the agricultural and industrial company bears 10% of the liability, which should be maintained.
In addition, the court neither recognized nor rejected the counterclaims filed by Xilongduo Company and Agriculture, Industry and Commerce Company.
The First Intermediate People's Court held through trial that the counterclaims filed by Xilongduo Company and the agriculture, industry and commerce company in the first instance involved interest. , does not belong to the same legal relationship with this case, does not belong to the scope of acceptance, and there is no procedural problem in the court of first instance.
To sum up, the appeal requests of Xilongduo Company and Agricultural, Industrial and Commercial Company have no legal and factual basis.
The First Intermediate People's Court made a final judgment, dismissed the appeal and upheld the original judgment.