[a brief introduction of the case] Think of a property management center and other units and individuals in the intentional harm should bear civil liability jointly and severally in the case of residential property owners will be the victim Yang Chen accused, incidental civil defendant of a parking management limited, a property management center, incidental civil lawsuit defendant xiaomou to court, seeking compensation for economic losses. The final verdict of the Beijing second intermediate people's court rejected Yang and property management center appeal, upheld the court made Chen Yang compensation for medical expenses totaling 62 thousand and 900 yuan, 6990 yuan compensation xiaomou Yang, parking management Limited jointly and severally liable, Yang he dismissed the lawsuit verdict. In April 2015, Chen Beijing city Daxing District Weishanzhuang a residential property office door, parking fees because of a dispute with Yang, Yang Chen after armed head minor injuries caused by beatings. The physical contact with Yang Mouyi xiaomou assault, but not alone for Yang constitute a minor. Employees are hired and Chen xiaomou a parking management limited company at the time. In March 2016, the court sentenced him to eight months imprisonment for intentional injury. The injury caused yang to pay medical expenses, loss of work costs, nursing costs and other economic losses totaling 6.9 yuan. [focus of dispute] Yang in the court of first instance criminal incidental civil lawsuit that Chen was involved in parking management limited company security officer, the company security department responsible xiaomou was also the scene of his beaten. A property management center in Beijing has outsourced parking fees to parking management Co., Ltd., the company has failed to fulfill its security obligations. According to the relevant provisions of the Tort Liability Act, the court requested the four defendants to jointly compensate for their economic losses of 137 thousand yuan. Chen argued that he was employed by the parking management company, and that the civil part was unable to compensate for it. Parking Management Limited argued that Chen and Shaw are the company's security staff, according to the court for compensation. Property management center argued that Chen, xiaomou are not the property staff, no violations of property; property and parking management center has not signed over parking management contract, it did not agree with Yang's claim. Xiao Mou argued that a reasonable part of the agreement was to be awarded. After the trial court of the first instance, Yang and parking management Co., Ltd. refused to accept the appeal and appealed to the second intermediate school. Yang believes that the property management center does not bear civil liability is improper, request the court commuted to assume joint liability for civil compensation. Parking management company believes that the people injury caused by Chen, Shaw's behavior is not to perform their duties, the company identified the bear joint liability for civil compensation had no factual or legal basis. Two in the hospital after hearing that Chen's intentional injury behavior and xiaomou violations to Yang caused economic losses, according to the law should be reasonable compensation. The employer is not the property management center, Chen Xiao, documented evidence material is not sufficient to prove the property management center, Department of joint tort. Parking management and security services such as parking management Limited is responsible for the area, and Chen Department xiaomou parking management limited staff, Chen, xiaomou in residential parking fees in the process of handling disputes causing injury, has internal relation with the performance of their duties, are engaged in employment activities, thus the damage caused by parking management company liable for the damages in according to the law. According to Chen, the court of first instance made xiaomou behavior to the economic losses caused by Yang incidental civil judgment part, Panpei amount appropriate legal proceedings, should be maintained. Accordingly, the above ruling is made. (source: Chinese Court Network)