Man installs air conditioner without safety rope to fall to building

Wang Qike was invited by a worker named Chen Guofeng to install air conditioners for an Internet café. During the installation, Wang accidentally fell from a glass platform on the second floor, which broke under his weight. He suffered multiple injuries and later filed a lawsuit against Chen Guofeng, claiming that he was employed by him and therefore Chen should be held responsible for the injury.

On April 25, 2012, Chen Guofeng had contracted an after-sales service for air conditioner installation at the Qinji Building. He called Wang Qike to help with the installation in the cyber cafe. However, during the work, Wang was not equipped with safety ropes. While walking to the glass extension platform to install the air conditioning ducts, the glass broke, causing him to fall and sustain serious injuries.

According to Wang Qike, he was directly hired by Chen Guofeng, who benefited from the installation fee. Therefore, Chen should be held accountable for the accident. Moreover, Wang argued that the cyber cafe was also negligent in providing a safe working environment.

Chen Guofeng, on the other hand, denied having an employment relationship with Wang Qike. Instead, he claimed they were partners in the project, sharing the installation fees equally. He stated that there was no direct supervision or control over Wang’s actions. Additionally, he pointed out that Wang had gone to gamble during work, which led to the accident, and thus Wang was primarily at fault.

The Meilan Court initially ruled that an employment relationship existed between Wang and Chen. It found that Wang was 30% responsible for the accident due to lack of safety measures, while Chen was 70% liable for failing to ensure a safe working environment. The court ordered Chen to pay Wang approximately 100,000 yuan in medical expenses.

Wang Qike appealed the decision, but the Haikou Intermediate People’s Court upheld the original verdict on November 29, 2013. The court emphasized that the key difference between an employment and a contract relationship lies in whether one party exercises control and direction over the other. In this case, Chen Guofeng assigned tasks, set the location, and paid Wang regularly, indicating a controlling relationship.

Furthermore, the court highlighted that employers have a duty to ensure the safety of their workers. Since Chen Guofeng was in charge of the work, he was legally responsible for Wang’s injury.

This website solemnly declares: This article is a reprint from online media, and only represents the author's point of view. It has nothing to do with this site. If any news articles or comments infringe your legal rights, please contact us, and we will handle it promptly.