In the process of purchasing waste products, the family members died of electric shock due to theft accident. They filed a lawsuit to the court, demanding compensation from the power company and the stolen cold chain company. Recently, the Qijiang District People's Court of Chongqing ruled in the first instance a case concerning the liability dispute for personal injury caused by electric shock, and rejected the plaintiff's claim. On April 12, 2020, Mr. Zhang Tongwen and Mr. Kang drove a small truck from Banan District to Qijiang District of Chongqing to buy waste goods. On the way, the three found a box type transformer near the road, belonging to a cold chain company. Kang got off to check the situation and waited for the opportunity to steal. The other two people were on the roadside. Kang got an electric shock in the process of stealing the box type transformer. Zhang and Wen found it and took it away from the scene and sent it to the hospital. Kang died in the process of sending it to the hospital. Subsequently, the public security organ gave Zhang and Wen 12 days of administrative detention. In January 2022, Kang's family members filed a lawsuit to the court, demanding compensation from the power company and the cold chain company. After hearing, the court held that the cold chain company recognized that the transformers and other equipment inside the enclosure were owned and used by it at the time of the incident, so the main system of liability for damage in this case was the cold chain company rather than the power company. According to relevant laws, "if the operator is engaged in high-altitude, high-pressure, underground excavation activities or uses high-speed rail transport tools to cause damage to others, he or she shall bear tort liability, but if it can be proved that the damage was caused by the victim's intent or force majeure, he or she shall not be liable. If the infringee is negligent about the damage, the liability of the operator may be reduced". Therefore, according to the above legal provisions, if the victim intentionally or force majeure occurs to the damage result, the cold chain company shall not be liable for compensation for Kang's death due to electric shock. According to the investigation and evidence collection of the public security organ, Kang was electrocuted in the process of stealing the box type transformer and died, while the evidence presented by the plaintiff was not enough to overturn the public security organ's determination. In addition, in combination with the fact that Mr. Zhang and Mr. Wen found that Mr. Kang was electrocuted and sent him to the hospital, the police went to the scene to investigate and led Mr. Zhang to identify the scene, and the above personnel all went to the site of Mr. Kang's electrocution for many times without any electric shock accident, the plaintiff's reason for Mr. Kang's death from being electrocuted by a transformer due to carelessness in going to the toilet could not be established. To sum up, the court held that the defendant Cold Chain Company should not be liable for the death of the deceased Kang due to electric shock after the trial, so it made the above judgment. (Outlook New Times)