How should the car owner and property management bear their respective responsibilities for accidentally slipping and getting injured while taking a shortcut across the parking space? Recently, the Gongshu District People's Court in Hangzhou, Zhejiang Province, concluded a dispute over the right to life, body, and health, and ruled that the car owner and the property management company each bear 90% and 10% of the responsibility. The court found that in February 2022, Wang drove to his workplace and parked his car in the underground parking space of his rented office building. In order to take a shortcut, Wang attempted to cross the opposite parking space diagonally to the elevator entrance, but accidentally slipped and injured his left wrist when he reached the involved parking space. The hospital diagnosed him with a wrist fracture. Afterwards, Wang had multiple negotiations with the garage manager and a property management company regarding the responsibility for losses. However, due to the inability of both parties to reach a consensus, Wang filed a lawsuit with the court, claiming that the property management company had failed to fulfill its safety protection obligations and demanded compensation for various losses totaling over 140000 yuan. During the trial, Wang believed that the parking space in question had uneven ground, dents, accumulated sewage, and a slippery surface. However, a property management company failed to promptly eliminate safety hazards and did not set up any safety warning signs, and should bear the main responsibility. A property management company argued that the purpose of the parking space is to park vehicles, not pedestrian walkways. The ground condition of the involved parking space is good. As an adult, the plaintiff, knowing the purpose of the parking space and being able to notice the water on the ground, still crossed the parking space and fell and injured, and should bear the consequences on their own. The court believes that the main function of a parking space is to park vehicles rather than pass through. At the time of the incident, the garage passage was unobstructed and well lit. Wang, who used the shortcut to pass through, should have fulfilled his duty of caution for his own safety. Wang and his daughter, as individuals with full capacity for civil conduct, could have avoided accidents with a little care. However, due to negligence, they accidentally fell and were injured, so they should bear the main responsibility for their own injuries. However, at the same time, it is a common behavior in real life to use parking spaces for passage. Parking spaces also have the function of passage. Evidence shows that the ground of the involved parking space is slightly uneven, with water or oil stains present. A property management company failed to repair the corresponding problems in a timely manner, which is related to the plaintiff's fall. It can be determined that the plaintiff did not fulfill their safety protection and caution reminder obligations, but the degree of fault is relatively minor. Based on this, the court ruled that the responsibility ratio between Wang and a certain property company is 90% and 10%, respectively. After the court hearing, the judge stated that operators and managers of shopping malls, garages, and other public places who fail to fulfill their safety obligations and cause harm to others should bear tort liability. However, at the same time, individuals with full capacity for civil conduct also have a duty of prudence and care towards their own health and safety. Public places have complex environments and high pedestrian traffic, so it is even more important to be vigilant and take precautions to avoid accidents caused by personal negligence. (New Society)