In real life, many old residential areas are unable to install vertical elevators due to limited conditions. Residents, especially elderly people with limited mobility, can they install seat elevators on their own in the corridors for convenient travel? When there is a conflict between the safety bottom line and convenience needs, which comes first? Recently, the Tianhe District People's Court in Guangzhou, Guangdong Province tried a case of infringement dispute over the installation of elevators by owners. The first instance ruling rejected Chen Bo's claim for compensation from Li Bo and his son. Chen Bo and Li Bo are both retired employees of a certain unit who are over 80 years old. They both reside in a three story old building in a residential area (formerly an employee dormitory of a certain unit) in Tianhe District, Guangzhou. Chen Bo and his wife live on the third floor, Li Bo and his son live on the second floor, and there are four other retired elderly households living in the same building. In recent years, Chen Bo felt that he and his wife were getting older and had difficulty moving, and the old building was too old to have the conditions for installing a vertical elevator. He discussed with the other five homeowners to install an "electric slide" (also known as a "seat elevator") in the corridor. Li Bo clearly expressed opposition to this. Chen Bo once applied to the unit to install an elevator, and the unit replied that as the building belongs to the private property of each owner, the disposal of the shared space for stairs should be handled in accordance with legal provisions. The unit has no decision-making power over whether to install an elevator. The unit also pointed out in the reply that the width of the staircase in this building is only 1.09 meters. If a seat elevator is installed, it will not comply with the requirements of laws and regulations such as the Fire Protection Law of the People's Republic of China, the Code for Fire Protection Design of Buildings, and the National Design Standards and Specifications for Indoor Stairs. Finally, Chen Bo decided to install it himself and purchased a seat elevator priced at 158000 yuan. Subsequently, the elevator company encountered obstacles from Li Bo and the property management company for six on-site installation attempts, and it was not until the seventh attempt that the installation was successful. Chen Bo paid an additional installation fee of 4500 yuan for this. After installation, the corridor, which was originally about 1.1 meters wide, was occupied by a guide rail of 0.2 meters. When opening the seat to use the elevator, the corridor was occupied by 0.9 meters. After installation, Li Bo placed a U-shaped lock and stopper on the guide rail outside his home to prevent Chen Bo from using the elevator. Chen Bo discovered and destroyed the lock and stopper. Afterwards, the public security department issued a "Notice of Order to Correct" to the community property management company, ordering them to make corrections on the grounds that the property management company did not stop the occupation of public evacuation routes in a timely manner. The property management company issued a "Rectification Notice" to Chen Bo, requesting him to remove the installed seat elevator within seven days. However, Chen Bo ignored it and posted a notice below the notice, clearly stating that he will continue to test and use the seat elevator. Half a month later, Li Bo sent a written request letter to the property management company, requesting their cooperation in dismantling the seat elevator on their own. The property management company replied in writing "Agree to cooperate with the cleaning". The next day, Li Bo's two sons, witnessed by the property management company, removed the guide rails from the corner platform on the first to second floors and placed the removed guide rails on the roof of the building. Two days after removing the guide rail, Chen Bo used an electric saw to cut the three iron branches on Li Bo's anti-theft door. Chen Bo was subjected to administrative punishment by the public security organs for this. Afterwards, Chen Bo sued Li Bo and his son to the court. Chen Bo believes that he invested in the purchase and installation of a seat type elevator that does not require construction according to national regulations. Li Bo
Edit：Wang Chen Responsible editor：Jia Jia
Source：rmfyb.chinacourt.org
Special statement: if the pictures and texts reproduced or quoted on this site infringe your legitimate rights and interests, please contact this site, and this site will correct and delete them in time. For copyright issues and website cooperation, please contact through outlook new era email：lwxsd@liaowanghn.com
Recommended Reading Change it 
Home
