导航

导航 MENU

Home page

Taihe Case | Liability for Injuries Caused by Objects Thrown from Heights: How Should “Building Users Who May Have Caused the Harm” Be Held Accountable? — An Analysis of the Dispute over Liability for Damage Caused by Objects Thrown or Falling from Heights between Chen et al. and Liang et al.

Release Date:

2026-09-18

I. Case Overview

On the morning of August 15, 2020, an 85-year-old resident, surnamed Chen, was resting by the roadside within the residential complex near Building No. 2, where his daughter lives, when he was struck by a bamboo pole that fell from a height. The bamboo pole entered through his right knee and remained lodged in his body. The injured man was subsequently transported to a hospital for treatment, where he was diagnosed with an open comminuted fracture of the right femur, a retained foreign body in the right knee joint, and an injury to the right wrist joint.

At 10:27 a.m. that day, residents of the community reported the incident to the police. The local precinct dispatched officers, who assisted in transporting the injured person to a hospital and conducted on-site inquiries to identify the owner of the falling object. However, no one came forward to take responsibility. According to the officers’ later recollection, the bamboo pole responsible for the injury was approximately 2 meters long and about 2.5 centimeters in diameter. The meteorological department confirmed that on the day of the incident, the maximum wind speed was 9.3 meters per second (level 5), with winds blowing from the south to southwest, and no precipitation was recorded.

Mr. Chen was hospitalized for 15 days, during which he underwent debridement and foreign-body removal of the right wrist and right knee joints, VAC negative-pressure drainage, and debridement and suturing of the right knee joint. Subsequently, a forensic appraisal agency determined that, following the injury, Mr. Chen did not sustain any permanent disability; the period of lost work was assessed at 240 days, the nursing period at 150 days, and the nutritional support period at 120 days.

The residential community in question is a resettlement housing complex built through demolition and relocation. Building 2, Unit 1 comprises 18 floors and faces south; from east to west, the apartment types are numbered 01, 02, and 03. The incident occurred along an internal road on the southeast side of the south-facing balcony of Unit 01. Following an on-site inspection by the court, it was found that certain external equipment platforms in the community still accommodate bamboo poles, wooden sticks, and makeshift bamboo racks used for drying items. At the time of the incident, Unit 02 had not yet been allocated to residents, while some units in Units 01 and 03 had not yet completed property‑rights transfer registration; moreover, some units were leased to third parties, resulting in a discrepancy between the actual occupants and the registered owners.

In January 2021, our firm accepted the mandate of the victim, Mr. Chen, thereby embarking on a six-year-long journey to safeguard his rights. After undergoing first-instance and second-instance proceedings, as well as a retrial ordered by the higher court, his rights were ultimately upheld.

II. Judgment Result

On December 29, 2023, the court of first instance issued a civil judgment, holding that certain residents were each liable to compensate the victim RMB 6,400. Following appeals by some defendants, the Intermediate People’s Court of a certain city, in the second-instance proceedings, requested information from the gas and electricity companies and found that, at the time of the incident, some units in Building 2, Unit 1 were both supplied with gas and electricity; moreover, the owners of certain properties submitted evidence demonstrating that they had only acquired those properties after the incident occurred.

On September 11, 2024, the Intermediate People’s Court of a certain city issued a civil ruling, revoking the original judgment and remanding the case for retrial on the grounds that new evidence had emerged in the second instance and that additional parties should be joined.

During the retrial, Chen某某 applied to add the property management company and the relevant occupants of the premises as defendants, and withdrew the lawsuit against the subsequent purchaser. On December 27, 2025, following deliberation by the Trial Committee of the court of first instance, a first-instance civil judgment was rendered: the property management company failed to fulfill its duty of ensuring safety and shall bear 30% of the liability; the occupants of the units in Unit 01, floors 5 through 19, shall be liable for compensating Chen某某 for the remaining damages.

Eleven households filed an appeal against the decision. During the second-instance proceedings, Chen某某 passed away; his two daughters withdrew from the litigation, while his son, Yang某某, succeeded to all rights and obligations in the case. On September 8, 2026, the Intermediate People’s Court of a certain city rendered a final judgment: dismissing the appeal and upholding the original ruling.

III. Reasons for the Judgment

(1) Application of Law: The Civil Code May Be “Revisited”

The accident occurred on August 15, 2020, prior to the effective date of the Civil Code. Relying on Article 19 of the Supreme People’s Court’s Provisions on the Temporal Effectiveness of the Application of the Civil Code of the People’s Republic of China, the court clarified that, for civil disputes arising from harm caused by objects thrown from buildings or objects falling from buildings before the Civil Code came into force, the provisions of Article 1,254 of the Civil Code shall apply. This also constitutes the normative basis for applying the new rule of “prior liability borne by the property management entity plus appropriate compensation by the user” in this case.

(2) Statute of limitations: The limitation period begins to run only when all three conditions are met; in this case, the statute of limitations has not expired.

The court held that the commencement of the three-year statute of limitations must satisfy both conditions: The right has been objectively infringed; the rights holder knows or ought to know that the right has been infringed; and the rights holder knows or ought to know the specific obligor. In this case, the residential community at issue is an resettlement housing complex. The properties were initially registered in the name of the developer, and after some units were allocated to residents, property‑rights transfer registrations were long left unprocessed, creating an objective difficulty in identifying the actual users. The plaintiff, Chen, filed a lawsuit against certain occupants as early as 2021 and requested investigative measures; subsequently, he obtained an expert appraisal to determine his losses. Following the issuance of the appraisal report in June 2022, he filed a motion within three years to add the property management company and other relevant occupants as defendants. Moreover, since the occurrence of the accident, Mr. Chen has consistently asserted his rights, and there is no evidence of neglect or delay in exercising those rights. Accordingly, the claims brought against the property management company and certain occupants are not time‑barred.

(3) Property Management Company: Failing to fulfill its duty of ensuring safety, it shall bear 30% of the liability for compensation.

Although the property service enterprise in this case did not enter into a direct property service contract with the homeowners, it signed an “Entrusted Management Agreement for Relocation Housing” with the community residents’ committee of the residential complex and collected property fees, agreeing to provide services in accordance with the Level‑4, Category‑3 service standards applicable to residential communities; accordingly, it was obligated to fulfill its corresponding duties. The court, taking the following factors into account, found that the enterprise was at fault: first, the complex consists of high-rise buildings, posing a high risk of objects being thrown or falling from height, and the property management company had a duty to install safety‑prevention warning signs, intensify patrols, conduct public awareness campaigns to prohibit such behavior and issue timely warnings, and carry out advance preparations to clear debris during extreme weather; second, no surveillance cameras were installed near the site of the incident, and the property management company failed to prove that it had discharged its obligations to ensure safety and issue adequate warnings or implemented necessary safety‑ensuring measures, thus bearing the adverse consequences of failing to meet its evidentiary burden; third, on-site inspection revealed that certain external equipment platforms in the complex still harbored potential hazards, such as bamboo poles and wooden sticks left in positions where they could fall. Accordingly, pursuant to Article 1254 of the Civil Code and Article 25 of the Interpretation (I) of the Supreme People’s Court on the Application of the Tort Liability Section of the Civil Code of the People’s Republic of China, the court assigned the property management company 30% of the liability commensurate with its degree of fault, with the remaining damages to be appropriately compensated by the users of the building who may have caused the harm.

(4) Scope of Liability: The category of “building users who may have caused the harm” is narrowed down to 13 out of 14 households.

This is the most instructive aspect of the case. Rather than simply drawing a boundary based on the “entire building” or the “entire unit,” the court applied the standard of “high probability” set forth in Article 108 of the Interpretations of the Supreme People’s Court on the Application of the Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China, progressively narrowing the scope layer by layer across three dimensions:

·Spatial dimension: The building is oriented north–south. The incident occurred along the roadside to the southeast of Unit 01, the easternmost unit, and was closest to that unit; Units 02 and 03 are farther away and separated by the projecting balcony of Unit 01, so they do not meet the physical conditions necessary to cause harm. Therefore, the user who may have been responsible for the harm would likely be in Unit 01.

·Energy Dimension: A bamboo pole penetrated the right knee joint and remained lodged therein, concurrently causing an open comminuted fracture of the right femur. This injury was attributable to a high‑energy traumatic impact with exceptionally penetrating force, which could only be inflicted by a projectile launched at a significant height or by a fall from such a height; therefore, a low‑floor origin can be ruled out.

·Meteorological and carrier dimensions: On the day of the incident, wind force was at level 5, with peak gusts reaching 9.3 m/s; unsecured outdoor objects could have been blown away. For Unit Type 01, the external equipment platform adjacent to the nearest window was capable of supporting a bamboo pole that subsequently fell.

Taking the foregoing factors into account, the court found it highly probable that the occupants of the premises on the 5th floor and above—unit type 01—were the likely perpetrators. Furthermore, in light of electricity and gas usage records indicating that all of the aforementioned units were occupied at the time of the incident, the court ultimately held 13 of the unit‑type 01 apartments located between the 5th and 18th floors liable, as claimed by the victim.

(5) “Adequate compensation” does not equate to “full compensation.”

The court explicitly stated that the building user who may have caused the harm bears liability for compensation. It should not be full compensation, but rather appropriate compensation based on the sharing of losses. In this case, the property management company paid compensation of RMB 13,279.02, and the 13 households received a total of RMB 20,800, amounting to RMB 34,079.02 in aggregate. However, this sum does not fully cover the total loss of RMB 44,263.41; the remaining shortfall of RMB 10,184.39 was borne by the injured party. Meanwhile, once the specific tortfeasor has been identified, the property management company and the users who have already received compensation may, in accordance with the law, seek recourse against that tortfeasor.

IV. Legal Advice

(1) To Property Owners and Tenants: The key to exemption from liability is “proof of impossibility,” not “I didn’t know.”

·Upgrade “not at home” to “impossible.” In disputes over objects falling from height, a mere defense of “not at home” or “the item was not present in the residence” is generally ineffective. An effective avenue for establishing liability exemption requires assembling a comprehensive chain of evidence—such as access‑control and elevator‑log records, workplace attendance and payroll records, travel‑expense receipts, off‑site consumption records, utility‑usage trends, and neighbor testimony—and demonstrating that doors and windows remained securely locked at all times, ensuring no one could have gained entry.

·Be adept at using physical conditions to eliminate possibilities. The apartment’s orientation, the obstructing balcony projection, the floor height, the length and weight of the harmful object, as well as the trajectory of the throw or fall, can all serve as technical grounds for an exemption defense. However, it should be noted that if one asserts “physical impossibility,” they must proactively request an on-site inspection, a trajectory analysis, or the court‑appointed appearance of an expert witness; merely advancing a verbal defense will result in the failure to meet the burden of proof (as some owners in this case ultimately lost their case for this very reason).

·Vacant and rented properties must also be documented. A vacant property does not absolve the landlord of liability, nor does it automatically do so after the property has been rented out. Recommendations: Conduct regular inspections and keep records; if a property remains vacant for an extended period, retain proof of zero utility consumption for water, electricity, and gas; and in rental agreements, explicitly prohibit throwing objects from heights and placing items on window sills or equipment platforms, while specifying corresponding liabilities for breach of these provisions.

·Minors who cause harm shall have their guardians bear liability. At the time of the incident, some of the property owners in this case were minors, and their parents bear responsibility. Households with minor children should strengthen safety management of balconies and window sills.

·Retain evidence of the transaction timing. In this case, Unit 1501 was only re-registered in the current owner’s name after the incident (on December 17, 2020), yet neither party was held accountable despite presenting evidence; meanwhile, the registered owner at the time of the incident was still ordered to pay compensation. When buying or selling a second-hand property, it is essential to carefully retain the purchase contract, proof of payment, and documentation of the transfer date.

(2) To Property Service Enterprises: Service standards are the “yardstick,” and maintaining a clear record is the best form of evidence.

·Technical security measures are the optimal solution. Installing upward‑facing high‑altitude object‑dropping surveillance cameras around high‑rise buildings not only helps identify the culprit after an incident but also provides a clear defense in litigation, offering far greater cost‑effectiveness than post‑incident compensation.

·Implement each item in accordance with the service standards. In this case, the property management was found liable because, despite promising to adhere to the Level‑4, Category‑3 standards, it failed to provide evidence that it had installed warning signs, conducted patrols, or carried out public awareness campaigns and dissuasion efforts. It is recommended to establish four types of record‑keeping systems—“patrols,” “public education,” “dissuasion,” and “reporting”—and to document these activities with photographs and signed acknowledgments.

·Extreme weather events must be accompanied by early warning measures. Prior to periods of strong winds, rain, or snow, notify residents via the owners’ group chat, bulletin boards, and in‑unit reminders to clear any items left on balconies, window sills, and equipment platforms, and maintain records of such notifications.

·Manage common areas effectively. The rooftop communal drying area, exterior wall equipment platforms, and public clotheslines are common areas and high‑risk zones for falling objects; they should be included in routine inspections, and their management responsibilities should be clearly assigned.

·The identity of the contracting party does not affect the establishment of liability. Although the property in this case did not enter into a direct contract with the owners, it was nonetheless deemed the property service provider because it had entered into an entrusted management agreement with the community residents’ committee and had, in fact, collected property fees. As long as it actually provides property services, it must assume the obligation to ensure safety.

(3) To the victim: Secure evidence promptly, file a lawsuit early, and apply for an investigation without delay.

·Secure physical evidence immediately and report to the police. The harmful object is key to identifying the true perpetrator; in this case, the loss of the bamboo pole has directly prevented the identification of the specific tortfeasor. The victim and their family should urge the investigating authorities to collect physical evidence and preserve fingerprints and other traces, while also independently taking photographs and videos, seeking eyewitnesses, and requesting access to nearby surveillance footage.

·File a lawsuit as early as possible and make effective use of investigative orders. In resettlement housing and older residential communities, it is common for the registered property owner to differ from the actual occupant. Therefore, an investigation order should be promptly obtained to access real estate registration records, and a court application should be filed to request that utility providers (water, electricity, gas), property management companies, and local community authorities disclose the actual occupancy status.

·Pay attention to the interruption and record-keeping of the statute of limitations. Filing a lawsuit, withdrawing a lawsuit, requesting an expert appraisal, or adding additional defendants may all constitute grounds for interrupting the statute of limitations; however, it is essential to retain relevant documents such as the acceptance notice, the court’s ruling, and the appraisal commission letter to establish a coherent chain of evidence demonstrating continuous assertion of one’s rights.

·Evidence of losses must be solid and well-supported. Medical expenses shall be substantiated by official receipts (with the portion covered by basic medical insurance pooled funds excluded from the calculation of damages); nursing expenses and lost‑wage compensation must be supported by invoices, employment contracts, bank statements, and proof of reduced income; mere receipts are unlikely to secure full reimbursement. Whether a disability is established directly affects the types of compensable items and the allocation of appraisal fees.

·Reasonable expectations regarding the compensation outcome. It is permissible to sue only some of the potentially liable users without any reduction in the amount awarded; however, it should be noted that the users’ liability is limited to “appropriate compensation,” which typically does not cover the full extent of the losses.

(4) Toward Community and Grassroots Governance: Putting an End to “Collective Accountability” Through Technological Safeguards

The allocation of liability under Article 1,254 of the Civil Code is, at its core, a compromise that apportions risk between potential tortfeasors and property managers when the true perpetrator remains unidentified. To fundamentally curb such instances of “collective punishment among neighbors,” three foundational measures remain essential: integrating high‑rise object‑dropping surveillance into the planning of new developments and renovation projects; enshrining in the homeowners’ covenants a prohibition against placing objects on window sills, equipment platforms, or rooftop drying areas, coupled with regular inspections; and, following an incident, ensuring that public security authorities systematically collect physical evidence and preserve conditions conducive to forensic analysis. Only by leaving no hiding place for the real culprit can compensation liabilities be prevented from falling upon innocent parties.

The typical significance of this case lies in the following: On the one hand, rather than resorting to a blanket “collective liability” simply because the true perpetrator could not be identified, the court applied the standard of “high probability” and, considering factors such as the location of the incident, the nature of the harm, and weather conditions, narrowed the scope of liability to 13 households occupying Unit 01 on the fifth floor and above. This demonstrates a prudent determination of the range of building users who might be responsible. On the other hand, by ordering the property management company—found to have failed to fulfill its duty of ensuring safety—to initially bear 30% of the compensation, while specifying that such compensation constitutes “appropriate redress” rather than full indemnity, the court struck a balance between providing relief to the injured party and preventing undue burdens on innocent parties. For the broader community of homeowners, the most practical lesson is this: in disputes involving objects thrown or falling from height, “I don’t know” and “I wasn’t home” won’t save you; only proving “it couldn’t have been me” will.

Attorney Wang Yuehua

Attorney Wang Yuehua is the Organizational Committee Member of the Taihe Party Branch, Director of the Financial and Securities Practice Committee, and Deputy Director of the Risk Control Working Committee. She holds a Master’s degree in Civil and Commercial Law and is a Level‑3 lawyer. She currently serves as a member of the Specialized Committee on Party Building Research and Guidance and the Legal Professional Committee on Mergers and Acquisitions and Restructuring of the Nanjing Lawyers Association, and is an arbitrator at the Huangshan Arbitration Commission. She is also qualified to practice in the fund and securities sectors.

Attorney Wang primarily practices in securities issuance and listing, ongoing legal services, mergers and acquisitions and corporate restructuring, corporate matters, private equity and venture capital investments, corporate governance and equity‑based incentive plans, as well as commercial litigation.

This article is published by Jiangsu Taihe Law Firm. The author is Jiangsu Taihe Law Firm, and the copyright belongs to the author. Please cite the original source when reprinting; violations will be prosecuted.

None

Taihe Case | In the second-instance appeal of an AI‑e‑commerce trademark infringement case, attorneys Tang Xuebin and Qian Nanhui of Taihe (Taizhou) secured a reversal of the lower court’s ruling, safeguarding their client’s brand rights.