A man in China tragically died after falling into an elevator shaft following a drunken dispute with his wife, leading his family to seek damages from the property management company. The court ultimately ruled that the property manager bore partial responsibility, awarding a fraction of the claimed amount.
In March of last year, a man identified as Tong invited friends to his home to celebrate his daughter's birthday. During the meal and drinking, Tong argued with his wife over trivial matters and left the residence. Subsequently, he rammed the elevator doors on the 18th floor where he lived, causing him to plunge into the elevator shaft and die. Tong's wife, identified as Yang, along with other family members, filed a lawsuit against the community's property management company and the elevator maintenance unit, seeking compensation of over 1.55 million yuan for various losses.
The first-instance court determined that the property management company had failed to promptly update the aging elevator, constituting a degree of fault, while the elevator maintenance unit had fulfilled its maintenance obligations without negligence. The court ordered the property company to pay the family more than 140,000 yuan in damages. Dissatisfied with the ruling, Yang and other relatives appealed the decision.
According to recent reports from a judicial document website, the second-instance court, the Xi'an Intermediate People's Court in Shaanxi Province, dismissed the family's appeal and upheld the original judgment. The court documents revealed that on March 30, 2025, Tong invited friends to his home for a dinner gathering to celebrate his daughter's birthday. Around 10 PM that evening, Tong fell from the elevator door on the 18th floor of his building into the elevator shaft, landing on top of the elevator car. His friends and wife immediately contacted the property management office, emergency services, and medical dispatch.
Tong was rescued and rushed to the hospital by ambulance, but succumbed to his injuries on March 31. The medical death certificate listed the cause of death as severe traumatic brain injury resulting from a high-altitude fall. The medical expenses incurred during the rescue efforts totaled 147 yuan.
Surveillance footage from the elevator at the time of the incident showed the elevator operating normally at 10:05 PM on March 30. At 10:05:45 PM, a woman entered the elevator on the 14th floor, and the doors closed normally as it descended. At 10:06:12 PM, the elevator suddenly stopped on the 12th floor, followed by significant impact and shaking of the elevator car. Testimony from Tong's friend, identified as Zhao, indicated that after an argument with his wife, Tong left the apartment, and shortly after, loud banging sounds were heard. Zhao saw Tong intentionally ramming the elevator door with his body before he fell into the shaft.
The first-instance court found that the accident was caused by the intentional damage to the left elevator door on the 18th floor, which led to the door lock disengaging on the 12th floor and halting the elevator. The elevator had passed annual safety inspections, and the maintenance company regularly serviced it. Therefore, the fall was not due to an elevator malfunction or improper maintenance. However, the property management company was found to have failed in its safety management duties by not posting warning signs near the elevator doors, such as "do not lean," and acknowledging that the elevator was aging. The court held the property company 10% liable for the consequences of Tong's death, ordering it to pay 149,820.9 yuan in compensation.
Upon appeal, the second-instance court affirmed that Tong's own intoxicated and uncontrolled actions, which caused the elevator door to detach and led to his fatal fall, were the direct and primary cause of the incident, constituting gross negligence on his part. The property management company, as the administrator of the community's common areas and the elevator, had a duty to ensure safety, conduct daily maintenance, identify hazards, and take reasonable precautionary measures. While the maintenance records were complete, the company failed to adequately identify potential risks and did not post necessary warning signs on the doors, thereby failing in its duty to warn. This management deficiency was deemed causally linked to the incident, warranting a share of responsibility.
The court concluded that the 10% liability assigned to the property company was appropriate and consistent with legal principles and fairness, given the degree of fault and causation. The Xi'an Intermediate People's Court therefore rejected the family's appeal and upheld the original ruling.