Aunt housekeeping was hired to work in her employer's house, and she accidentally slipped while sweeping the floor, resulting in a fracture of the lower pole of the left patella. Aunt housekeeping thought that the reason for the injury was that the floor was too slippery, so she filed a claim with the employer and the housekeeping company. The court heard the case and held that the responsibility for the accident lay with the domestic aunt herself, who failed to fulfill her duty of care when mopping the floor. Employers and domestic companies have no responsibility and reject their claims.

The court held that the plaintiff, as a domestic worker, had an obligation to be cautious when engaging in domestic service. Because the plaintiff is an adult, she should pay attention to anti-skid when she is engaged in daily mopping and the like, and she should also be able to feel whether she is slippery or not. And the employer did not let the plaintiff engage in work other than that stipulated in the contract. In this case, the defendant's employer was not at fault and did not need to be liable for compensation. During the plaintiff's treatment, the defendant has paid 8000 yuan. The defendant said that the plaintiff did not need to return it, and the court was not pursuing it.

The plaintiff asked the housekeeping company to compensate him. It is believed that domestic workers have no pre-job training and insurance. The court held that the contract agreement signed between the domestic company and the plaintiff did not include the purchase of comprehensive insurance for domestic accidents, so there was no obligation. At the same time, the plaintiff is only engaged in general housework such as cleaning the floor, and does not need to hold a certificate and post training. The task of the housekeeping company is to act as a bridge to ensure the establishment of the contract between the plaintiff and the employer. From the whole course of the case, there is no evidence to prove that housekeeping is at fault.

Our country's laws stipulate the employment relationship between individuals. In the life-style and consumption-style employment relationship, when the personnel who provide labor services are physically damaged in the activities of labor services, they shall be dealt with according to the principle of fault liability. In this case, the employer did not ask the plaintiff to engage in work beyond the agreed scope, and the plaintiff should pay attention to the surrounding working environment and choose the right tools to work, but the plaintiff failed to do this, and the fault lies with the plaintiff, so the court rejected her claim.