Damage Caused By Fault Should Be Compensated Accordingly.

Chen Caiying, Liu Yue, of Hunan Changde Shimenn County, was hurt accidentally in the process of painting the inner wall at Liu Yue's house.

In March 18th, the people's Court of Shimenn County tried to hear the dispute over the liability for providing a service to the people's court in accordance with the law. Liu Yue's compensation for Chen Cai's losses amounted to 13 428 yuan, and Wang Chi's compensation for Chen Cai lost 6713.90 yuan.

Liu Yue was painted by the interior walls of his new three three storeyed buildings. After introducing Liu Yue, he repeatedly consulted Wang Chi, who had been engaged in painting business all year round, but did not have the corresponding qualifications, and agreed to paint the walls inside his house.

Wang Chi invited Chen CAI and a total of four painting workers to complete the business. The two sides agreed that the project should be completed by 45 yuan per person, and the Contractor would not pay for the work.

On the morning of next morning, Chen Cai accidentally fell from the workbench, and spent more than ten thousand yuan on medical expenses.

Chen Cai repeatedly failed to find Liu Yue's compensation.

He then appealed to the court for a verdict in accordance with the law.

Wang Chi believed that all construction workers' remuneration was distributed equally on the basis of the work day. Wang Chi did not make much money, so it was not a contractor.

Therefore, Wang Chi should not be held liable for damages.

Liu Yue believes that it is not clear who is the contractor.

The court held that employers and employers in employment relations

There is a certain relationship of personal attachment between employers, employers can manage and supervise employees, and a series of rules and systems can be formulated to restrict employees. Employers can modify their work at any time. Employees must obey their employer's command and arrangement in their work process. The time and mode of their services can not be decided by themselves. In the case, the project is jointly owned by Wang Chi and all the construction personnel.

The price was also determined by Liu Yue on the day of construction. There was no relationship between management and management by Wang Chi and Chen CAI. All the construction workers worked together according to their own wishes and time, and worked together for equal pay. Wang Chi was only organizing and coordinating in the project, and its nature did not conform to the constitutive requirements of the employment relationship, so it should be regarded as a cooperative relationship.

Liu Yue contracted out to Wang Chi and others by way of contract work and no material wrapping.

Because Wang Chi and others did not have corresponding architectural qualifications, Liu Yue, as a decision maker, had faults in appointing the contractor, so he should take corresponding compensation liability for Chen Cai's damage in construction.

Due to the remuneration of all construction workers on the basis of the work day, the construction workers do not form a fixed partnership. Therefore, they should be identified as a cooperative relationship. For the loss of Chen Cai, because of Wang Chi's lack of construction qualification, and the invitation to pay no money to engage in certain dangerous operations, there must be some fault, so it should bear the corresponding liability for compensation.