Telecom Company Liable for USD 3,900 After Power Pole Collapse Injures Factory Owner
Telecom Company Liable for USD 3,900 After Power Pole Collapse Injures Factory Owner
Case Overview
A telecommunications company was held liable for personal injury and property damages after one of its concrete cable poles collapsed, striking power lines at a nearby concrete product factory in Eastern China. The injured factory owner, Mr. Dai, was awarded approximately 28,362.80 yuan (about USD 3,900) in compensation for medical expenses, lost profits, and repair costs. The company appealed the trial court decision but the appellate court upheld the ruling.
Case Background and Facts
Mr. Dai operated a concrete product factory located along a county road in Eastern China. His business was a private enterprise supported by the local township government. On July 19, 2009, a concrete pole owned by the local branch of China United Network Communications Co., Ltd. suddenly collapsed. The falling pole struck and broke Mr. Dai’s live electrical wires and another concrete pole on his property. Fearing that nearby children might be electrocuted by the exposed wires, Mr. Dai rushed to intervene but was himself knocked down by an electric shock. Workers at his factory immediately transported him to a local hospital. Mr. Dai was hospitalized for 11 days and incurred medical expenses of 1,902.80 yuan. Due to the accident, his factory ceased operations from July 19, 2009, to August 18, 2009.
Court Proceedings and Evidence
Mr. Dai filed a lawsuit against the telecom company in the local court. The trial court commissioned the local price certification center to assess the factory’s lost production income. The assessment determined the loss at 22,103 yuan, with an additional evaluation fee of 400 yuan. The trial court calculated total damages as follows: medical expenses 1,902.80 yuan, nursing fees 792 yuan, meal subsidies 165 yuan, repair costs for damaged electrical lines 3,000 yuan (out of an actual cost of 4,800 yuan), and lost profits 22,103 yuan, plus the evaluation fee of 400 yuan, for a total of 28,362.80 yuan.
The telecom company appealed, arguing that the trial court misjudged the facts and misapplied the law. Specifically, it claimed Mr. Dai was hospitalized for only 6 days, not 11. It challenged the validity of medical invoices and the legality of Mr. Dai’s business license. It also argued that the lost profit assessment was unreliable and that such losses were not direct damages. The company further claimed Mr. Dai intentionally aggravated his losses.
At the appellate hearing, both parties presented evidence and arguments. The company pointed to trial transcripts to argue its objections to certain evidence were ignored. Mr. Dai maintained the trial court’s findings were correct.
Court Findings and Judgment
The appellate court found no merit in the telecom company’s appeal. It confirmed that hospital records showed Mr. Dai was admitted from July 19 to July 30, 2009, a total of 11 days. The court noted the company provided no evidence to support its claim of only 6 days of hospitalization. Regarding Mr. Dai’s business status, the court accepted village committee certification and tax payment records as proof of lawful operation. The company failed to produce contrary evidence. The court also upheld the price certification assessment, noting it was conducted by a qualified agency commissioned by the trial court, and the company neither provided contrary evidence nor applied for a new evaluation. The court rejected the argument that lost production profits were not compensable, finding such losses directly resulted from the accident. It also found no evidence that Mr. Dai deliberately caused his losses to increase. Finally, the court dismissed the company’s procedural objections, noting the trial judgment had properly addressed the evidence. The appellate court affirmed the original judgment in full and ordered the company to pay the appellate costs of 300 yuan.
Key Legal Principles
Under Chinese civil law, a party at fault for damaging another’s property or causing personal injury must bear compensatory liability. A property owner owes a duty to maintain its facilities safely. When a structure collapses and causes harm due to lack of maintenance, the owner is presumed negligent. Courts may award compensation for both direct medical and repair costs as well as indirect economic losses, such as lost business profits, when those losses are proven by reliable evidence, such as a court-commissioned expert assessment.
Practical Insights
This case illustrates that utility and telecommunications companies must properly maintain their infrastructure, including poles and cables. Failure to do so can result in liability for personal injury and property damage, including lost business income. Business owners should document their losses carefully and seek court-ordered professional assessments to support damage claims. Defendants who dispute evidence must present contrary proof or formally request a new evaluation; mere objections are insufficient.
Legal References
General Principles of the Civil Law of the People’s Republic of China, Articles 106(2) and 119. Supreme Peoples Court Interpretation on Compensation for Personal Injury Cases, Articles 19, 21, and 23. Civil Procedure Law of the Peoples Republic of China (2007 Revision), Article 153(1)(1).
Disclaimer
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified attorney for specific legal matters.