In this case, the author understands and respects the court’s decision..
938 civil ruling: the construction law of the people’s Republic of China does not require to engage in interior decoration construction, so corresponding construction qualification must be provided.
Then Company B will contract the work to Wang, who will hire operators in the labor market.
The hotel was at fault.
According to the decoration contract signed between the defendant Hotel and the decoration company, the total contract price was 60000 yuan, the decoration scope was ordinary indoor decoration, and the glass above the lobby door should also belong to an indoor whole, which did not belong to the construction project activity of outdoor climbing construction of the whole building, There is no legal provision that glass above lobby door does not belong to interior decoration.
According to the gist of the judgment established by the Supreme People’s Court (2014) minshen Zi No.
Does interior decoration need construction qualification? Is the law of this case applicable to Article 10 or Article 11 of the judicial interpretation of personal injury? Interior decoration activities are not required to obtain qualification by law: according to the gist of the judgment established by the Supreme People’s Court (2014) minshen Zi No.
After the trial, Wang, the contractor, was added as the third person.
In the court trial, the plaintiff argued that the accident site of the deceased should not belong to the scope of indoor decoration, and there was no legal basis.
The following is a detailed analysis of a decoration construction contract dispute case represented by the author in 2019: [brief description of the case] hotel a needs to carry out renovation and partial repair, sign the interior decoration contract with B Decoration Engineering Co., Ltd., and company B will find someone to construct by itself according to the contract.
The presiding judge also held four court sessions to verify the focus of controversy.
has decoration qualification does not affect the validity of the decoration contract between the defendant Hotel and B company and the establishment of the contracting relationship.
During the actual construction, the operator fell from a height to death due to improper operation when replacing the glass above the hotel.
2.
[defendant’s point of view] 1.
[lawyer’s analysis] such cases are very representative and controversial in judicial practice.
Although the hotel entrusted company B to decorate, company B was unqualified, and hotel a should bear joint and several liability.
2.
The plaintiff waives the right to claim against the decoration company and the third party in this lawsuit.
As the ordering party of the contract, the defendant hotel has no fault in selection and should not bear any responsibility in this case.
Although the qualification standard for design and construction of decoration engineering issued by the Ministry of construction stipulates the basis for the qualification level of enterprises engaged in the design and construction of Building Decoration Engineering, it does not clearly stipulate that enterprises without qualification shall not carry out decoration engineering construction, and this provision belongs to departmental rules and cannot be used as the legal basis for determining the invalidity of civil contracts.
Whether B Decoration Engineering Co., Ltd.
[court decision] Finally, the court ruled that hotel a and company B were in the contracting relationship, and the qualification issue did not affect the establishment of the contracting relationship.
As the hotel’s attorney, we have communicated and explained with the judge on the application of law and qualitative issues for many times.
938 civil ruling: the construction law of the people’s Republic of China does not require to engage in interior decoration construction, and must have the corresponding construction qualification.
During the trial, in order to find out the facts of the case, the court added company B as the defendant ex officio.
the hotel did not provide a safe working environment for the deceased, which led to the deceased’s inadvertent falling from a height.
For this case, the author analyzes the focus of controversy from the perspective of lawyers as follows: 1.
The defendant did not hire the plaintiff, so it is not responsible for the accident and does not need to bear any liability for compensation.
Abstract: the law on interior decoration activities does not require that qualification should be obtained.
This case involves work at heights of more than two meters.
As the ordering party, the defendant had no fault in the accident and should not be liable for compensation.
The decoration contract does not require the decoration company to have qualification.
However, if the ordering party is negligent in the ordering, instruction or selection, it shall bear the corresponding liability for compensation.
The defendant’s hotel did not review whether the deceased had engaged in professional training for work at heights, and should bear certain liability for compensation for negligence in ordering and selection.
Although the standard for design and construction qualification of decoration engineering issued by the Ministry of construction stipulates the basis for verifying the qualification level of enterprises engaged in design and construction of Building Decoration Engineering, it does not clearly stipulate that enterprises without qualification shall not carry out decoration engineering construction, and this regulation belongs to departmental rules and cannot be used as the legal basis for determining the invalidity of civil contracts.
The author acted as the attorney for the defendant a hotel.
[plaintiff’s point of view] the deceased provided labor services for hotel a.
Whether the glass above the hotel lobby is part of the interior decoration, and whether special qualification is required? The author believes that the glass above the lobby door belongs to an integral part of interior decoration and does not need special qualification.
At last, the court ruled that the defendant hotel should bear 10% of the responsibility for the fault of appointment.
However, the defendant’s Hotel, as a ordering person, should have corresponding duty of care for ordering, instruction and selection.
Therefore, the plaintiff’s request that the defendant bear joint and several liability was not supported.
The defendant is not the qualified subject of the case.
Whether the defendant has qualification in this case does not affect the establishment and effectiveness of the contract.
Later, the family members of the deceased sued to the court and asked hotel a to bear the liability for compensation.
The defendant in this case is engaged in interior decoration activities rather than construction projects.
Therefore, according to Article 10 of the judicial interpretation of personal injury: if the contractor causes damage to a third party or causes damage to itself in the process of completing the work, the ordering party shall not be liable for compensation.
