1.基本案情2020年11月，被告工程总包方与被告工程分包方签订《输变电工程基础施工、杆塔组立劳务分包合同》，工程总包方将涉案工程项目劳务分包给工程分包方完成。2020年12月，被告工程总包方与被告爆破公司签订《爆破服务合同》，约定由爆破公司负责爆破作业方案设计，报批手续办理，爆破材料购买、运输装卸、看守保管，现场爆破作业及监护等相关工作。2021年6月，原告在高速公路上执行工作任务时被爆破公司进行输变电工程基塔爆破产生的滚石砸伤，受伤后原告被送往医院住院治疗64天，后经司法鉴定伤残等级评定为十级。2022年1月，原告向人民法院提起诉讼，诉求被告连带赔偿其各项损失26万余元。

   2.处理结果本案经一审法院审理判决由爆破公司赔偿原告各项损失20余万元，驳回原告对工程总包方、工程分包方的诉讼请求。爆破公司不服一审判决，提起上诉。二审庭审中，爆破公司申请撤回上诉，二审法院裁定准许。

 

 

    本案是一起因爆破作业未采取完备的安全措施、未尽到高度的警示义务造成的人身损害责任纠纷，案件主要争议焦点为：1.各方当事人在本案中责任如何认定；2.原告受伤导致的损失如何认定。

    1.关于各方当事人在本案中责任认定的问题

    工程总包方认为，其并非爆破作业人，不存在任何侵权行为，对损害后果的发生没有任何过错，工程总包方依法不应承担任何责任，本案应当由爆破公司承担全部责任。首先，本案事故系因爆破公司的爆破作业所引发，而工程总包方并非涉案工程的爆破作业人，对原告未实施任何侵权行为，依法不应承担责任。其次，工程总包方将爆破作业发包给具备资质的爆破公司完成，签订爆破服务合同，明确约定了责任界限，不存在选任过失，对本案的发生没有任何过错，依法不应承担任何赔偿责任。双方签订的爆破服务合同亦明确约定：“乙方（爆破公司）在实施爆破作业中出现的一切意外事故及人身伤害，均由乙方承担法律责任并负责经济赔偿。”再次，虽然爆破服务合同中约定由工程总包方协助完成爆破作业的现场警戒，但是爆破作业属高度危险作业，爆破公司作为从事爆破作业的专业机构，现场警戒是否到位，是否具备爆破作业条件，需由其确认后方可实施。现场警戒不到位亦充分证明，爆破公司未尽到高度警示义务，对于爆破作业过程中造成的人身损害事故，无论依据法律规定还是与工程总包方之间的合同约定，均应当由其承担全部事故责任。   

    一审判决认为，首先，爆破公司在工地实施爆破作业，是一项具有高度危险性的作业活动，其作为有专业资质的施工方，应当采取完备的安全措施并尽到高度的警示义务，但爆破公司没有尽到保障爆破作业安全的高度警示义务，导致原告受到损害，其过错显而易见，爆破公司对此依法应承担赔偿责任。其次，爆破服务合同中对工程总包方清场和警戒义务的约定，并不能免除爆破公司做好爆破工程施工地防护措施并提醒工程总包方提前与高速公路管理部门做好对接工作的义务，让不具资质的非专业性的工程总包方自己主观确定安全的区域并采取防护和警戒措施，无疑将其应尽的确保爆破过程中保护他人人身、财产安全的注意义务转嫁到了工程总包方身上，加重了工程总包方的注意义务，有失公平。因此，工程总包方在本案中对原告的损害不存在过错，不应承担赔偿责任。最后，对于工程分包方的责任，其在本案中仅是分包了工程总包方发包的工程基础施工、杆塔组立的劳务工程，工程的爆破作业直接由工程总包方与爆破公司签订爆破服务合同来完成，其不是爆破服务合同的合同相对人，不参与爆破作业活动，原告系因爆破作业产生的滚石砸伤，工程分包方对原告的损害不存在过错，在本案中对原告的损失不承担责任。

    原告请求赔偿的残疾赔偿金、后续治疗费、住院伙食补助费及鉴定费有证据证明且符合法律规定，法院予以支持。其主张的部分医疗费系其出院后产生，应包含在后续治疗费中，法院不予支持。对于误工费、营养费、护理费、交通费、被扶养费人生活费的计算应当根据实际花费进行，应在原告原有主张的基础上予以适当调整，法院不予全部支持。精神抚慰金法院按照伤残等级及实际损伤情况酌情支持。

 

    根据《民用爆炸物品安全管理条例》第三十三条规定，“爆破作业单位应当对本单位的爆破作业人员、安全管理人员、仓库管理人员进行专业技术培训。爆破作业人员应当经设区的市级人民政府公安机关考核合格，取得《爆破作业人员许可证》后，方可从事爆破作业。”第三十四条规定，“爆破作业单位应当按照其资质等级承接爆破作业项目，爆破作业人员应当按照其资格等级从事爆破作业。爆破作业的分级管理办法由国务院公安部门规定。”第三十八条规定，“实施爆破作业，应当遵守国家有关标准和规范，在安全距离以外设置警示标志并安排警戒人员，防止无关人员进入；爆破作业结束后应当及时检查、排除未引爆的民用爆炸物品。”因此，施工单位在施工过程中，需要实施爆破作业的，应依法发包给具备《爆破作业单位许可证》的爆破专业单位完成，并明确约定由爆破单位完成爆破现场警示标志设置、警戒人员安排，以及确认是否满足爆破作业条件等，尽可能避免发生因爆破作业导致人身、财产损害事故的产生。

   2.加强合同管理，避免就同一事项签订不同版本的多份合同

    本案工程总包方与爆破公司就同一爆破服务事项先后签订两份合同，时间间隔两个月，且合同内容存在约定不一致的情形。爆破公司依据先签订的《爆破工程施工服务合同》，主张工程总包方未履行爆破现场的清场、警戒义务，导致发生人身损害事故，应承担相应责任。但实际上，签订在后的《爆破工程施工服务合同》并无相关约定。因此，公司应加强合同签订、履行及存档管理，避免就同一事项重复签订内容不一致的合同，导致纠纷产生。

     3.公司在发生被诉案件后应积极应诉，依法维权

    公司在发生被诉案件后，应当积极应诉，及时收集、固定对于我方有利的证据资料。面对法律专业问题，应向公司法律专业人员或律师咨询，同时根据案件事实及相关证据制定并执行诉讼策略或方案，依法维护公司的合法权益。本案工程总包方诉讼代理人为王武、许灿虎律师。

 

A Case Brief

 

   In November 2020, the Defendant general contractor and the Defendant engineering subcontractor signed the Labor Subcontract for Foundation Construction and Tower Assembly of The Power Transmission and Transformation Project, in which the general contractor subcontracted the project to the engineering subcontractor to complete. In December 2020, the Defendant general contractor of the project signed the Blasting Service Contract with the Defendant blasting company, agreed that the blasting company would be responsible for: (a) Designing the blasting operation plan; (b) Handling the approval procedures; (c) Purchasing, transporting, loading and unloading, guarding and keeping the blasting materials; (d) Conducting on-site blasting operations and supervision and other related work.In June 2021, while performing work tasks on the highway, the Plaintiff was injured by rolling stones generated from the blasting of the  engineering tower of the power transmission and transformation project by the blasting company. After the injury, the Plaintiff was sent to the hospital for 64 days of hospitalization and was later rated as level ten disability by judicial appraisal.In January 2022, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit to the people’s court, claiming that the three Defendants should jointly compensate for his losses of more than 260,000 yuan.

   2. Processing results

   The first-instance court ruled that the blasting company should compensate the Plaintiff for various losses of more than 200,000 yuan and rejected the Plaintiff’s lawsuit against the general contractor and engineering subcontractor. The blasting company appealed against the first-instance trial. In the second-instance trial, the blasting company applied to withdraw the appeal, and the second-instance court ruled to allow the request.

 

B Legal Analysis

 

  This case is a personal injury liability dispute caused by the failure to take complete safety measures and fulfill the high warning obligation during blasting operations. The main issues in the case are: 1. How to identify the responsibilities of the parties involved in the case; 2. How to identify the losses resulting in the Plaintiff’s injury .

    The general contractor argued that he was not the blasting operator and did not commit any infringement. He had no fault in the occurrence of the damage consequences. Therefore, he should not take any responsibility according to the law. The blasting company should take all the responsibilities in this case. Firstly, the accident in this case was caused by the blasting operation of the blasting company, and the general contractor was not the blasting operator of the project involved in the case. Therefore, he did not commit any infringement against the Plaintiff and should not take any responsibility according to the law. Secondly, the general contractor subcontracted the blasting operation to the qualified blasting company to complete, and signed a blasting service contract, which clearly defined the responsibility limits. There is no fault in the selection of the appointment, and he had no fault in the occurrence of this case. Therefore, he should not take any compensation responsibility according to the law. The blasting service contract signed by both parties also clearly stipulated: “The second party (blasting company) shall take legal responsibility and economic compensation for all accidents and personal injuries that occur during the implementation of blasting operations.” Thirdly, although the blasting service contract stipulated that the general contractor should assist in the on-site warning during the blasting operation, the blasting operation was a highly dangerous operation, the blasting company as a professional organization engaged in blasting operations, needed to confirm whether the on-site warning was adequate and whether the blasting operation conditions were met before implementation. The fact that the on-site warning was inadequate fully proved that the blasting company did not fulfill its high warning obligation. Therefore, it should bear all the accident responsibilities resulting in personal injury during the blasting operation, whether based on legal provisions or contract agreements with the general contractor. The first-instance trial held that, firstly, the blasting operation implemented by the blasting company on the construction site was a highly dangerous operation activity. As a qualified construction party, it should take complete safety measures and fulfill the high warning obligation. However, the blasting company did not fulfill its high warning obligation to ensure the safety of the blasting operation, resulting in damage to the Plaintiff, his fault is obvious, the blasting company should take the compensation according to law. Secondly, the agreement in the blasting service contract regarding the general contractor’s obligation to clear the site and provide warning does not exempt the blasting company from its obligation to take protective measures for the blasting construction site and remind the general contractor to coordinate with the highway management department in advance. Allowing the unqualified and non-professional general contractor to subjectively confirm the safe area and take protective and warning measures, which undoubtedly shifts the blasting company’s obligation to ensure the safety of others’ personal and property during the blasting process to the general contractor, it increases the general contractor’s obligation unfairly. Therefore, the general contractor has no fault in the Plaintiff’s damage in this case and should not take any compensation responsibility. Finally, regarding the responsibility of the subcontractor, it only subcontracted the labor engineering of the foundation construction and tower assembly of the project contracted by the general contractor in this case. The blasting operation of the project was directly completed by the general contractor and the blasting company through the blasting service contract. The subcontractor was not a party to the blasting service contract and did not participate in the blasting operation. The Plaintiff was injured by rolling stones caused by the blasting operation. The subcontractor has no fault in the Plaintiff’s damage and should not take any responsibility for the Plaintiff’s losses in this case.

   2.On the issue of identifying the losses caused by the Plaintiff's injury.

   The Plaintiff requested compensation for disability compensation, follow-up treatment expenses, food allowances for hospitalization, and appraisal fees have evidence and in accordance with the law, the court will support. The part of the medical expenses claimed by the Plaintiff was incurred after discharge and should be included in the follow-up treatment expenses, which the court did not support. The calculation of the lost income, nutrition expenses, nursing expenses, transportation expenses, and living expenses of the person maintained should be based on actual expenses and adjusted appropriately based on the Plaintiff’s original claim, which the court did not fully support. The court supported the mental comfort compensation according to the disability level and actual damage situation.