Comment On "the Zhengzhou Elevator Sudden Death Case"

In May 2017,the “Sudden Elevator Sudden Death Case” occurred in Zhengzhou,Henan Province,because the first instance and the second instance courts basically agreed on the facts of the case,based on the principle of “fair responsibility” and the theory of “causality” Different understandings of the people make completely different judgments.However,it is rare for the court of second instance to use the prohibition of unfavorable alteration as its reason to revoke the judgment of the first instance in my country’s judicial practice.The author believes that thinking about this case should not be limited to criticism or praise of the court’s judgment itself,but to explore and study how the first instance court made such a judgment that is wrong to most people,and whether the second instance court’s revised judgment is justified.Law has its value of existence because of human needs.It enables humans to live in order and justice.Law itself needs to reflect its own value through social effects.At this time,"fair responsibility" must be regarded as necessary to achieve the above-mentioned purpose.Factors to consider.This article elaborates on whether "fair responsibility" must be based on considerable causal elements and neither party has any fault for the occurrence of damages to further clarify the relevant fair responsibility.The author believes that "fair responsibility" is most criticized because the tort liability rule system established based on "fault liability" and "no-fault liability" has been damaged,and the reason for the damage is the abuse of power in the judicial adjudication process.A crisis of legitimacy has occurred.Therefore,the scope of responsibility should be clarified in the legislative process,and improper models and applicable conditions should be restricted,so as to promote "fair responsibility" to play its due role in the process of law application.Regarding the consideration of "causality",the determination of legal causality in our country adopts the theoretical rules of "equivalence".In practice,the composition of tort liability is generally based on the logical sequence of "act,damage result,the relationship between the act and the damage result,and then the actor’s fault" as the basis for judgment.In practice,subjective predictability is excluded from the objective Beyond the criteria for determining causality.The author analyzes and judges the case from two aspects: factual elements and legal elements,and thinks about the influence of "causality" of special physique and the theoretical system of "causality".According to the review function,the case of the court of first instance amending the judgment of the court of first instance with the exception of "public interest" is rare in our country,so the legitimacy of its approach has become a hot topic in the news.Therefore,the author judges and analyzes the legitimacy of the court of second instance from three perspectives: whether the judgment exceeds the scope of the appeal request,whether it violates the principle of prohibiting adverse changes,the exception of social public interest and its application.