Fire Law: Firefighting and Emergency Rescue by Public Security Fire Fighting Units

[pointing purpose]

The firefighting and emergency rescue operations carried out by the public security firefighting force are the operational fighting actions of the public security firefighting force. It is an act of rescue nature, and it is not an administrative act implemented in the performance of administrative authority.

[judgment document]

Beijing First Intermediate People's Court

Administrative judgment

(2017) No. 400 Beijing line 01 final

The appellant (plaintiff in) Xuxin Bin, male, July 2, 1960 born, Han nationality, live in Beijing Dongcheng District.

Authorized agent Zhang Dangwei, lawyer of Beijing Changhong Law Firm.

Entrusted agent Dai Huiyu, lawyer of Beijing Capital Normal Law Firm.

The appellee (defendant at the trial of the first instance), Beijing Public Security Fire Fighting Team, Haidian District, Beijing, domiciled at No. 12 , Xiwangwangsan Street , Haidian District, Beijing .

Legal representative history, captain.

Authorized agent Yu Qi, staff of the Public Security Fire Brigade in Haidian District, Beijing.

Attorney Mo Jieyun, lawyer of Beijing Zhongzhou Law Firm.

The appellant Xu Xinbin because of that the Police Fire Brigade Haidian District, Beijing (hereinafter referred to as the Haidian District Fire Brigade) does not fulfill the statutory duties of the case, refused to accept Beijing Haidian District People's Court (2016) Beijing 0108 line numbers beginning 881 administrative decision, this court appeal . After accepting the case, a collegial panel composed of law on May 24, 2017 public hearing of the case, the appellant's attorney Zhang Wei party, Dai Hui-yu, fire brigade appellee's Haidian District Attorney in odd, Mo Jie cloud Go to court to participate in the lawsuit. The case has now been finalized.

Court of First Instance found that: at 3:03:02 on July 10, 2016, Haidian District Fire Brigade Shuangyushu Squadron (hereinafter referred to as Shuangyushu squadron) to the Beijing Fire Department Command Center (hereinafter referred to as the command center) out command,

The Shuangshushu squadron was required to handle a traffic accident that occurred at the main road west of Xueyuanqiao, Haidian District, Beijing.

The Sinaba Squadron immediately dispatched three vehicles to the scene of the accident.

3:08:04, appearances Shuangyushu squadron report to the command center of the vehicle.

The route of the vehicle is: from the west side of the North Third Ring Road, Haidian District, where the Shuangshushu squadron is located, along the North Third Ring Road to Jianmen Bridge, and via the Qimen Bridge overpass along Xitucheng Road via Zhizhi Bridge to reach the accident site. Near the bridge under the College Bridge.

3:16, Shuangyushu squadron again deployed a tank fire engines to the scene to rescue the common. Due to the specific location of the accident can not be confirmed, Shuangyushu Squadron firefighters were 19 seconds and 3:21:20 in touch with the police two people to 3:17, to confirm the specific location of the accident to the North Fourth Ring Road Outer Ring (from east Westward) on the College Bridge.

The above two call durations were 132 seconds and 110 seconds, respectively.

Afterwards, the vehicle left from College Bridge to the left from the south to the west, and from east to west along the North Fourth Ring Road to the entrance of the main road. After entering the main road of the North Fourth Ring, it reversed and reached the scene of the accident. Arrival time is 3:29, with mileage of about 5 km.

After the Sycamore squadron arrived at the scene of the accident, it rescued a small passenger car that was burning. 3:36:31, (extinguishing time of only 7 minutes)

The double banyan tree squadron reported to the command center that the fire had been extinguished and that the passenger bus had a scorched person in its driving position. 4:12:20, Shuangyushu squadron rejoin the command center to report the shutdown.

August 22, 2016, the Beijing Traffic Management Bureau Haidian traffic detachment to make "road traffic accident", found at 2:10 on July 2016 May 2009 55 points, the main road in Beijing's North Fourth Ring Haidian District School On the bridge, Che Lijun drives a heavy dump truck from east to west. Xu Xinbin's son Xu Ao drove the small car in the same direction. The front of the small car collided with the rear of the heavy dump truck, and the small car came again. Contact with the center fence, the small car caught fire and caused Xu to die. Xu Ao was responsible for the accident.

Xu Xinbin believes that the Haidian District Fire Fighting Brigade has not fulfilled its statutory duties and filed an administrative lawsuit, requesting that Haidian District Fire Fighting Brigade should not perform fire rescue responsibilities in a timely manner after receiving a fire alarm. The police were not timely and violated statutory duties, resulting in the victim Xu Ao’s The serious consequences of the death caused by traffic accidents that did not receive timely treatment were illegal. The litigation fee was borne by the Haidian fire brigade.

The court of first instance held that: The first paragraph of Article 4 of the "Fire Protection Law of the People's Republic of China" (hereinafter referred to as the "Fire Protection Law") stipulates: "The public security organ of the local people's government at or above the county level shall supervise and administer the fire prevention work within its administrative area, and shall The fire protection agency of the public security agency of the people's government is responsible for the implementation. Therefore, the Haidian district fire brigade has the legal responsibility for the fire protection work within its jurisdiction.

Article 44 paragraph 4 of the "Fire Protection Law" states: "After receiving a fire alarm, the fire brigade must immediately rush to the scene of the fire to rescue the person in distress, eliminate dangerous situations, and extinguish the fire."

In this case, Xu Xinbin believed that the Haidian District Fire Fighting Brigade did not rush to the scene of the accident to rescue the fire, resulting in the death of his son Xu Ao. Haidian District Fire Fighting Brigade did not perform its legal duties according to law. Therefore, whether Haidian District Fire Fighting Detachment timely implemented the rescue work after receiving the alarm is the main issue that should be reviewed in this case.

The fourth paragraph of Article 44 of the "Fire Protection Law" only provides a principled provision for the fire brigade to carry out rescue work, and requires the fire brigade to immediately rush to the scene of the fire for rescue. Whether the rescue work carried out by the fire brigade of Haidian District is timely and appropriate, it needs to be judged by the evidence submitted by both parties and the facts identified by this Court.

According to the facts that have been ascertained in this case,

Haidian District Fire Brigade in at 3:03:02 on July 10, 2016 sent to the command,

At 3:08:04 Appearances report to the command center of the vehicle.

After arriving at the scene of the accident, Shuanghuashu Squadron could not confirm the exact location of the accident site.

In order to arrive at the accident site timely and accurately, and to start rescue as soon as possible,

Shuangyushu squadron firefighters and 19 seconds, respectively 3:21:20 3:17 in contact with two alarm people, call duration twice respectively 132 seconds and 110 seconds.

The firefighters first call time can be estimated, Shuangyushu squadron received at 3:03 out command, the 3:17 alarm people first contact, with the interval of 14 minutes;

Therefore, it takes about 14 minutes for the Shuanghuan squadron to arrive near the scene of the accident .

After about 3:23, the second end of the call, to confirm the specific location of the scene of the accident, the vehicle is started again, and arrived at the scene at 3:29 to start the rescue, in the middle with about 6 minutes.

From the receipt of the dispatch order to the scene of the arrival of the accident, Shuangyushu Squadron shared about 26 minutes.

There is nothing wrong with the fire truck of the Shuangshushu Squadron choosing the route to the scene of the accident; it is also necessary and reasonable for the firefighters of Shuanghuashu Squadron to call and confirm the specific location of the accident site.

Therefore, Haidian District Fire Fighting Brigade fulfilled its statutory duties of rushing to the scene of the fire immediately for rescue after arriving at the scene of the accident and receiving rescue after receiving the alarm. There was no delay and delay in fulfilling the duty of rescue.

The purpose of the "Public Fire Fighting Forces on Duty Combat Order" is to standardize the public security firefighting forces on duty operations and to ensure the completion of combat duties. The stipulation of Article 47 of the "First car to leave the garage for a period of no more than one minute" is a general rule for firefighters on duty and is not mandatory;

And the existing evidence cannot prove whether the first car of the Sassafras Squadron exceeded one minute when it left the garage. Even if the first car of the Shuanghuanshu Squadron left the garage for more than one minute, Haidian District Fire Fighting Brigade was only held to fulfill its statutory duties and violated the “Fire Protection Law” to “prevent fire and reduce fire hazards and strengthen emergency rescue. The legislative purpose of work, protection of personal and property safety, and maintenance of public safety, as well as the guiding ideology of “saving people first, and scientific rescue” in the “Public Fire Fighting Forces on Combat Battle Orders”, can not guarantee timely and effective combat missions. Completed.

Xu Xinbin believes that according to the fire station construction plan, the service scope of the fire station should ensure that the fire truck arrives at the fire field within 5 minutes after receiving the fire .

On the night of the accident, fire vehicles arrived on the scene for up to half an hour. The above regulations are related to the requirements of the planning department for the construction of fire stations. They are not mandatory requirements for the rescue of the fire department. They cannot be determined that the arrival of the fire engine at the fire site must be limited to 5 minutes; therefore, they do not constitute the fulfillment of the fire brigade of the Haidian District. Legal reasons for statutory duties.

Therefore, Xu Xinbin believes that the Haidian District Fire Fighting Brigade failed to perform fire rescue duties in a timely manner after receiving a fire alarm. Failure to timely dispatch the police resulted in Xu Ao’s litigation claim that he had not been treated in time after the traffic accident and died. There is no basis for facts and laws and regulations. No support. To sum up, according to the provisions of Article 69 of the Administrative Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, the court of first instance has rejected Xu Xinbin’s claim.

Xu Xinbin, the appellant, appealed to this court against the judgment of the first instance and requested that: the judgment of first instance be revoked; it was determined by law that the fire detachment of Haidian District had performed its statutory duties improperly—it had not arrived at the scene of the accident promptly after receiving the alarm, causing the victim Xu Ao to become involved in the traffic accident. The fact that a passenger car worth 1.75 million was killed after being caught in fire without being treated promptly and died ;

The first and second instance litigation costs shall be borne by the fire brigade of Haidian District.

The reasons for the appeal are slightly: 1. The judgment of the first instance verdict is that the fire department delays and is obsessed with performing duties, and is unfair to the victim and family members.

Second, the first-instance ruling on the basis of ascertaining factual errors applies legal errors and does not strictly adhere to the on-duty order to check whether the appellee's actions are lawful.

The Haidian District Fire Fighting Brigade of the appellee insisted on the defense in the first instance and requested the Court to maintain the original judgment.

Within the period of statutory evidence, all parties submitted evidence to the court of first instance and passed the trial of the court of first instance. The above evidence was transferred to the Court with the case. After review by this Court, the facts found by the court of first instance were corroborated by relevant evidence. The facts reviewed and confirmed by this court are consistent with the facts found by the court of first instance and this court confirms it.

This Court believes that the firefighting and emergency rescue operations carried out by the public security firefighting unit are the operational fighting actions of the public security firefighting force, and it is an act with a salvage nature. It is not an administrative act carried out to fulfill administrative authority.

Xu Xinbin’s lawsuit against Haidian District’s fire brigade’s actions described above lacks factual and legal evidence. Therefore, the first-instance ruling rejected Xu Xinbin’s request to confirm that Haidian District’s fire brigade had failed to perform fire-fighting and rescue responsibilities in a timely manner in case of a fire, and that the act of acting as an offender was not timely and was not inappropriate. Xu Xinbin’s appeal request was not supported by this Court. According to the first paragraph of the first paragraph of Article 89 of the "Administrative Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China", the judgment is as follows:

Dismissed the appeal and upheld the verdict.

The second-instance case acceptance fee is 50 yuan, which is paid by the appellant Xu Xinbin (already paid).

This decision is final.

Chief Justice He Junhui

Judge Jiao Jun

generation   Management   Review   Judgment   Xiao Lingling

July 18, 2017

Judge Assistant Lee Le

Li Li, clerk