Core Viewpoint - The case highlights the responsibility of property management companies in ensuring the safety of communal facilities, emphasizing the need for proper notification and maintenance to prevent accidents [1][5][10]. Group 1: Incident Overview - A property management company failed to notify residents about the reactivation of a malfunctioning automatic door, leading to an injury incident involving a resident who assumed the door was still disabled [2][3]. - The resident, Ms. Zhou, sustained injuries due to the sudden closure of the door while she was riding her electric bike, resulting in a rib fracture [2][7]. Group 2: Legal Proceedings - The court identified two main points of contention: whether the property management company violated its safety obligations and how to allocate responsibility between the parties involved [5][10]. - The property management company argued that they had repaired the door the day before the incident and had not yet informed residents, while Ms. Zhou contended that the company had created a false sense of security by keeping the door open for an extended period [3][6]. Group 3: Court Ruling - The court ruled that the property management company was primarily at fault for not fulfilling its safety obligations, leading to a 70% liability for the damages incurred by Ms. Zhou [7][11]. - The ruling emphasized that the property management company should have taken effective measures to ensure the safe operation of the automatic door and properly informed residents about its status [6][10]. Group 4: Recommendations and Implications - Following the case, the court provided judicial recommendations to the property management company, suggesting regular inspections and maintenance of communal facilities, along with timely notifications to residents [9][12]. - The case serves as a precedent for future incidents involving communal facilities, reinforcing the importance of clear communication and proactive management by property companies [1][8].

法院审理后认为，首先案涉的钓鱼活动并无组织者。三人参与的钓鱼活动具有自发组织、自愿参 与、临时性等特征，活动不存在特殊组织结构。彭军未要求其余两人服从组织和管理，在钓鱼活动中不 享有管理的权利，也未从中营利，与其余两人地位平等，彭军并非钓鱼活动的组织者，三人之间系结伴 同行关系。 其次，同行者尽到了合理注意义务。三人基于钓鱼爱好结伴同行主要是为了相互照应、友情交际， 彼此之间仅存在一般人能够预见的合理注意义务，如对同行者不慎落水、遭遇动物咬伤等显而易见的意 外，应该承担及时帮助的合理注意义务。张小伟系无既往病史的中年人，从发病到死亡时间极短，按照 专业医护人员的标准要求彭军、刘政预见张小伟死亡的可能性并及时作出反应，显然超出了合理注意义 务的限度。 近日，重庆市大渡口区人民法院审理了一起因钓友身亡引发的侵权责任纠纷案，通过综合审查原告 提交的证据材料、死者的身体状况、被告的救助过程等，认定身为被告的钓友不存在侵权行为，不应当 承担赔偿责任，依法判决驳回原告的全部诉讼请求。 张小伟、彭军、刘政三人同在重庆市大渡口区的一家公司上班，其中彭军还是张小伟的师傅，三人 都是"80后"，年纪相仿，关系亲密，经常相约一起钓 ...

法院认为，健身中心作为具有一定危险性的游戏项目经营者，负有保障参与者安全的责任。虽然通过张 贴警示信息、游戏前告知风险等方式履行安全保障义务，但在游戏过程中未能进行充分的安全监管，未 及时发现并制止消费者的危险行为，教练在指导未成年人清理余弹时未注意周围环境变化，健身中心在 安全管理和工作人员监督方面存在明显疏漏，承担主要责任。 贝某作为完全民事行为能力人，在健身中心提醒过安全风险的情况下，未采取安全措施、未确认环境安 全便进入游戏区域，对自身安全未尽到谨慎注意的义务，应承担部分责任。 那么，小马是否有责任呢？法院认为，小马作为未成年人，对其过错判定应与其年龄和心智相符合。小 马在规定区域、教练在场的情况下发射余弹，此时贝某无防护措施出现在游戏区域，超出了未成年人可 预见并妥善应对的范围。因此，小马不存在过错，不应承担赔偿责任。 法院提醒，场所经营者、管理者，要提供安全的环境，保障游戏硬件合格合规，定期对设备进行安全检 测和维护，通过电子监控、人员巡查等方式加强动态管理。还要充分保障消费者安全，制定完善安全规 章制度，明确各项安全操作流程和标准，游戏前向参加者进行详细的安全使用说明和风险提示，游戏过 程中进行 ...