Should the landlord or the power supply company compensate for the tenant's electrocution in case of a dispute over the lease of the house? Recently, the People's Court of Fancheng District, Xiangyang City, Hubei Province heard such a case. In April 2021, Mr. Zhang, who is engaged in the bean curd processing business, rented a first floor house from the farmyard of Mr. Liu, the landlord, and purchased machinery and equipment for the production and operation of bean products. On a certain day in July 2021, Zhang got an electric shock when he was unplugging the electronic scale plug in the tofu workshop on the first floor. The staff of the tofu workshop immediately called 120 emergency numbers after finding out, and then sent him to the hospital. However, he died after rescue, and was diagnosed as respiratory and cardiac arrest due to electric shock. Later, Zhang's parents and his wife and daughter sued Liu, the landlord, and the power supply company to the Fancheng District Court. They believed that the power supply line provided by Liu, the landlord, had failed to meet the security obligations due to the failure to install leakage protectors and other reasons, and had faults, so they should be liable for Zhang's death; The power supply company should perform the power use inspection obligation. It did not require Liu to install leakage protector, which caused a potential safety hazard. It should also be liable for compensation for Zhang's death. During the trial, the court asked the staff on the scene at the time of the incident. The staff confirmed that the electronic scale involved in the case was purchased by the deceased Mr. Zhang himself, who was holding the charger of the electronic scale in his hand when he got an electric shock. When the judge in charge visited the scene of the incident, he found that the house involved was equipped with an air switch with leakage protection function, which met the basic safety conditions for electricity use. The court held that this case was a dispute over liability for personal injury caused by electric shock, and the principle of fault liability should be applied. The victim, Mr. Zhang, leased the house from the landlord, and the landlord should bear the security obligations within a reasonable range, that is, to deliver the house that meets the security conditions and to conduct general maintenance and management of the leased property. In this case, the air switch with leakage protection has been installed in the rental house, which has the corresponding leakage protection function, and meets the safety conditions for electricity use. The landlord has fulfilled the safety guarantee obligations within a reasonable range. The existing evidence can not prove that there are potential safety hazards in the wiring of the rental house. Therefore, the plaintiff's claim that the landlord is at fault is not accepted. As for the responsibility of the power supply company, the power transmission line in the house involved belongs to the landlord and is under the management of the landlord. It is not the property of the power supply company, and there is no evidence to prove that the power supply company was at fault in the electric shock accident. Therefore, the claim that the power supply company should bear the responsibility is not supported. The electronic scale where the electric shock occurred was a private appliance purchased by Mr. Zhang himself, and he himself was responsible for the maintenance and safety troubleshooting of the electrical equipment. The victim got an electric shock when pulling out the electronic scale and charger port, which could not be ruled out that he did not perform his duty of safety care and operated the appliance in violation of regulations. To sum up, the plaintiff's claim against the landlord and the power supply company was not supported by the court due to insufficient evidence, and the plaintiff's claim was rejected according to the law. After the judgment, the plaintiff refused and appealed to Xiangyang Intermediate People's Court. The Xiangyang Intermediate Court rejected the appeal and upheld the original judgment. (Outlook New Times)