Recently, in Suzhou, Jiangsu, a woman named Duo asked KFC for a glass of water because of her thirst. After drinking it, she found that it was disinfected water. After drinking, Xiao Du developed severe discomfort in his throat and stomach, and was diagnosed with acute erosive gastritis and stomach cramps by the doctor. After the KFC restaurant had undertaken the 1,500 yuan treatment fee, it said it was only willing to pay another 1,000 yuan, and at the same time asked Xiao Du to sign a confidentiality agreement. After the law enforcement agencies intervened in the investigation, KFC stated that it would compensate Xiao Du with 15,000 yuan for lost work compensation on the basis of being optimistic about the disease.
KFC assumes tort liability and the amount of compensation is unreasonable. Article 1165 of the “Civil Code” stipulates: “The perpetrator shall bear the tort liability for infringement of the civil rights and interests of others due to his fault.” When KFC provided services to the girl Xiaodu, it did not fulfill its duty of care and would contain disinfection. The cup of water was handed to Xiao Du, causing Xiao Du’s body damage (erosive gastritis and stomach cramps) to be hospitalized. According to the above regulations, KFC shall be liable for Xiao Du. “The Supreme People’s Court’s Interpretation on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Laws in the Trial of Personal Injury Compensation Cases” stipulates: “The victim suffered personal injury, all expenses due to medical treatment and the income reduced due to missed work, including medical Compensation obligors should compensate for expenses, lost work expenses, nursing expenses, transportation expenses, accommodation expenses, hospital food subsidies, and necessary nutrition expenses.  When everyone talks about KFC’s compensation, they all quote the United States “McDonald’s coffee burns the elderly.” “The case of compensation of 680,000 US dollars by the Taipa”, I want to compare the large gap in the amount of compensation in the infringement lawsuits filed by consumers between the two countries. However, the specific details of the two cases are different and cannot be directly compared. The case of coffee burns the old woman, there is a case in it. Product design defects. Before the old lady was injured and sued, more than 700 similar cases had occurred, but McDonald’s never consulted experts to improve the design of hot drink paper cups for burns, and did not reduce the temperature of overheating. This case is from the product liability. From a perspective, it was pointed out that McDonald’s did not meet the warning requirements and design requirements, and did not clearly inform consumers of the danger of burns; it did not improve the design of hot drink products. In this case, the main reason for this case is that the staff mistakenly caused the disinfection water to be given to the girl. It is guessed that KFC initially compensated one thousand on its own. The primary consideration is Article 148 of the Food Safety Law: Consumers who are damaged due to food that does not meet the food safety standards can claim compensation from the operator or the producer for the loss. Received Producers and operators claiming consumer compensation shall implement the first responsibility system, pay in advance without prevarication; if it is the responsibility of the producer, the operator shall have the right to recover the compensation from the producer after the compensation; if it is the liability of the operator, the producer shall have the right to recover the compensation after the compensation. The right to recover from the business operator. For the production of food that does not meet the food safety standards or the business of the food that knows it does not meet the food safety standards, in addition to claiming compensation for losses, consumers can also demand payment of ten times the price or three losses from the producer or business operator. Times the compensation; if the amount of compensation is less than one thousand yuan, it is one thousand yuan. However, the food labels and instructions have defects that do not affect food safety and will not mislead consumers. This is only for consumption. One of the basis of the claim that a person can use is that the girl in this case can sue KFC for compensation for medical expenses, lost work expenses, nursing expenses, transportation expenses, accommodation expenses, etc. through the proof-related losses in Article 6 of the Tort Liability Law mentioned above. Hospital food subsidies and necessary nutrition. Regarding the reasonable amount of compensation, refer to a case where an employee of a barbecue restaurant in Qingyang City, Gansu Province mistakenly handed an unwashed water cup (containing disinfectant) to the plaintiff to drink water, causing The plaintiff was unwell. The court finally awarded a compensation of 23,000 yuan. (2020) Gan 1002, Minchu No. 521, one cup is water from an unwashed cup, and one cup is ice water covered with ice cubes with disinfectant water. In addition, the case occurred in Suzhou, Jiangsu Province. City, although the lady in this case did not incur hospitalization expenses, but to compare the differences in medical expenses, lost work expenses, and necessary nutrition expenses between the two places, KFC signed a confidentiality agreement with consumers in order to maintain its corporate image. With the intervention of law enforcement agencies, The medical expenses and sealing fee (1000 yuan) are chased up on the basis Adding 15,000 yuan for lost work expenses to reach a settlement agreement with consumers, does it feel inappropriate? Looking at other answers, there is a comment that KFC provides consumers with this glass of water for free. This glass of water has a safety problem, and the compensation will naturally be less than the compensation for the safety problem caused by the amount of money consumed to buy food. It should be pointed out that this view is wrong. Catering institutions need to ensure the safety of the food provided, and shall not defend themselves on the grounds that the food is provided free of charge. In the same way, if the food provided by the carrier to passengers is consumed for free on public transportation, and there is a health problem, the food provider can also be held accountable. Shopping malls sell impending food at low prices. Consumers can also be held accountable if there is a problem with impending food, and the mall cannot argue for low-priced sales.