On December 2 last year, the 68-year-old Mrs. Yang went to the Dongpu Comprehensive Market in Yuecheng District, Shaoxing City to buy vegetables. She was suddenly pulled by a fish stall owner in the market. She suspected that she had stolen a soft-shelled turtle from the stall the day before, causing a dispute. . Although the surveillance confirmed that there was someone else who stole the turtle, Mrs. Yang passed out on the spot, and eventually the treatment failed and passed away.

After the incident, Mrs. Yang’s family took the stall owner and the market party to court, demanding a joint compensation of more than 2 million yuan. On the morning of the 21st, the Yuecheng District People’s Court opened a court session to hear the case.

At around 8 o’clock in the morning on the 21st, Mrs. Yang’s son Gao Shan came to the gate of the court and told reporters the reason for the prosecution. “After my mother fainted, she was rescued in the hospital for 8 days. With organ failure, she finally did not hold on.” Gao Shan said, “My mother has always been in good health. This kind of accident has dealt a huge blow to our family. And after the incident, the stall owner did not show any goodwill behavior, which made us more chilled before choosing to litigate.”

It is understood that Mrs. Yang’s family sued three defendants. The first and second defendants were owners of aquatic products and were husband and wife. The third defendant, Shaoxing Market Development Co., Ltd., the legal entity of Dongpu Comprehensive Market, filed a lawsuit. The compensation claim of more than 2 million yuan, including medical expenses, death compensation, reputation loss, and mental loss relief, was required to be shared by the three defendants.

The reporter saw from the indictment that the plaintiff believed that the first and second defendants fabricated facts and framed the victim in public for stealing turtle turtles in public places such as the vegetable market, resulting in the death of the victim from subarachnoid hemorrhage and causing serious damage to the victim’s family. Economic losses should be compensated; Dongpu Comprehensive Market is a market owned by the third defendant. As the market manager, it did not take active measures for the occurrence of the incident, which led to the occurrence and expansion of the incident, and it should be liable for supplementary compensation.

The plaintiff’s attorney Wang Yonggang said that this is a typical civil tort. The infringer’s tort has caused serious consequences of death. As the victim’s family, he is now suing the court and demanding the infringer to bear the corresponding compensation liability.

The reporter learned that none of the three defendants were present at the court hearing, only the attorney represented. Li Wei, the attorney representing the first and second defendants, said that he had already expressed his opinion in court and it was not convenient for interviews. It is reported that the court will choose a date to pronounce a verdict on this case.

zhiwo

By zhiwo

0 0 vote
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
11 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
helpmekim
7 months ago

The stall owner shall bear the tort liability. Without sufficient evidence, the stall owner “held” Mrs. Yang only by “suspicion”, which led to “controversy”, causing Mrs. Yang to faint on the spot, and the treatment was ineffective and died. Of course, we cannot see the evidence, and conclusions can only be drawn based on news reports, and there may be deviations. From the perspective of civil tort, the stall owner’s “holding” and “disputing” behavior was at fault for Mrs. Yang’s fainting, so the stall owner should bear the tort liability for Mrs. Yang. Civil Code: Article 1165 [Liability for Fault] If the perpetrator infringes on the civil rights and interests of others and causes damages due to his fault, he shall bear tort liability. Assuming that Mrs. Yang has a disease (some underlying diseases are likely to occur for the 68-year-old), it can be inferred that Mrs. Yang is at fault for the expansion of the damage, and the stall owner can claim to reduce the tort liability. The specific reduction ratio needs to be judged by the judge. If there is no underlying disease, we ordinary people may realize that anger is inevitable, but the probability of death is not high, and medical judgment is still needed. Civil Code: Article 1173 [The Fault of the Infringer] If the infringer is at fault for the occurrence or expansion of the same damage, the liability of the infringer can be reduced. The plaintiff claimed that Dongpu Comprehensive Market should assume supplementary liability. The author believes that it is the tort liability for the violation of the duty of safety protection in business premises such as shopping malls and public places in the Civil Code. Civil Code: Article 1198 [Responsibilities of Security Obligors] Operators, managers or mass activities of hotels, shopping malls, banks, stations, airports, stadiums, entertainment venues and other operating places, public places If the organizer of the party fails to fulfill its duty of safeguarding safety and causes damage to others, it shall bear tort liability. If the actions of a third party cause damage to others, the third party shall bear the tort liability; if the operator, manager or organizer fails to fulfill the obligation of safety protection, he shall bear the corresponding supplementary liability. After the operator, manager or organizer assumes supplementary responsibilities, it may seek compensation from a third party. The plaintiff can claim that the three defendants compensate Mrs. Yang for medical expenses, nursing expenses, transportation expenses, nutrition expenses, and hospital food subsidies. Due to the death of Mrs. Yang, she can also claim funeral expenses and death compensation. According to the standard calculation, the compensation of 2 million is obviously too high. The higher part may be claimed as compensation for mental damage. How much can be supported needs to be judged in accordance with local standards.

heloword
7 months ago

I don’t understand the legal problem, but a professional has answered it. I just want to say something. The family encountered a similar situation once. Two of my aunts were shopping together, and they were told by the stall owner that they had stolen things in a place where they sold coin purses. The stall owner called the police, and the three of them went to the police station together. They searched and found no, no apology, no compensation, and JC said a meal and released it. Of course my two aunts were very angry, but fortunately there were no other accidents. I heard them say that this matter is very different. First of all, if you suspect stealing, at least you have to clarify what the steal is. If you don’t know it, just open your mouth? Don’t you check the goods? The alarm is a reasonable operation. After the alarm, shouldn’t jc ask clearly what is missing? Search your body when you come up? Don’t you check the nearby surveillance? Doesn’t the merchant not compensate and apologize after searching? This incident has had serious consequences and the merchant has to compensate. If there are no serious consequences, can the merchant be wronged at will? If the theft is indeed detained according to the law, if not, the price of spreading rumors is too low. Of course, my aunt has problems. She didn’t fight for her rights reasonably, and she could only get angry when she was wronged. Just imagine, who can not be angry in this situation. I hope there can be a reasonable judgment, and I hope that the store can be sensible when things happen.

helpyme
7 months ago

The plaintiff’s prosecution is reasonable and lawful. This is completely different from the “Villager’s privately climbing trees, picking fruits and falling to death” in the ten typical civil cases of the Supreme People’s Court in vigorously promoting the core values ​​of socialism. “It’s also different. Although it looks a bit like there is a theory called “broken bottle” in legal theory, it is generally a cracked vase. If there is no external influence, it can continue to maintain the original appearance of the vase, but once the “cracked bottle” Suffering from external forces is more likely to cause the consequences of being broken in one blow. In this case, Mrs. Yang’s own body may indeed be ill, but if there was no external stimulation, she could have continued to live a healthy life for a long time, but because the stall owner suspected that she was stealing, she had a dispute with her, which caused her to suffer a sudden illness. There is a certain causal relationship, and the stall owner is at fault, because the old lady did not steal, which is the false accusation of the stall owner. Of course, Mrs. Yang’s death cannot be blamed on the stall owner. At this time, a question of participation will be introduced. Injury participation refers to the proportional relationship of injury to the occurrence of death, disability, and sequelae in the event of trauma, disease (including aging and physical differences) and other factors that act on the human body and harm human health. . The degree of injury participation reflects the impact of the victim’s special physique on the formation of the damage consequences. Trauma directly induces the original disease and has an impact on the damage consequences. Article 1173 of the “Civil Code” stipulates that if the infringee is at fault for the occurrence or expansion of the same damage, the liability of the infringer can be reduced. Of course, the amount claimed by the plaintiff of more than 2 million is too high. If the 68-year-old woman is fully responsible for compensation, it should be less than 800,000 in Jiangsu. Zhejiang is richer and may be slightly higher, but not so much. There is a relationship of responsibility ratio. A little prediction, the final court discretionary participation rate may be similar to the proportion of party drinking deaths and drinkers taking responsibility.

sina156
7 months ago

A very classic question for the exam, is it criminal responsibility for the other party to die after a heart attack caused by insults? My judgment is that there is no criminal liability in this case, but civil liability exists. The reason is that there is no fault in the sense of criminal law for the turtle stall owner, that is, there is no intention or negligence. He cannot realize that arguing with the old lady will lead to death. Because from the perspective of ordinary people, quarrels are inevitable. (Unless he knows in advance that the old lady is in poor health and stimulates her emotions to make her sick, that’s two.) However, civil liability still exists. According to past cases, this ratio is not very high. Of course, it depends on the specifics. Medical diagnosis report. I do not agree to take full responsibility, after all, my own illness is also a major cause of death. So the conclusion is to lose money, but 2 million is too much. Guess randomly, can there be 200,000?

yahoo898
7 months ago

A tragedy caused by a turtle. But He Gu, the soft-shelled turtle, is already a knife, and only people are left who can make trouble on the ground. As the saying goes, catch thieves and stolen goods, catch gangsters and catch double. I don’t know how the stall owner who lost the turtle thinks that the deceased was the one who stole the turtle? The article said it was a suspicion. Since it is a suspicion, you have to find evidence to support your suspicion. The stall owner directly grabs the deceased, hoping that the deceased himself admits to be a thief? Since there is monitoring, why not take a look at the monitoring first? I didn’t watch the surveillance beforehand, and directly grabbed the deceased and said that someone had stolen the turtle. This is not a suspicion, but it has been determined that the deceased was a thief. The deceased was a 68-year-old lady who went to the vegetable market to buy vegetables as usual. She was suddenly caught in public and accused of being a thief. Who can stand this situation? The injustice that comes suddenly in broad daylight is like a huge wave in a peaceful life, which can instantly stun or even kill a person. It is often more uncomfortable to wrong a good person than to indulge a bad person, and the bad consequences are more serious. There are some relevant precedents before such cases. The loss of money is affirmative, that is, the issue of more compensation and less compensation remains to be seen.

leexin
7 months ago

This should be compensated. The stall owner compensates. The citizen’s right to twiddle is limited to the current illegal and criminal acts. The stall owner can’t pull people away from the previous day’s behavior. They can only report to the police and ask the police to go through the police after investigation. Find the old lady. To put it simply, if the stall owner’s behavior is deliberate, he does not control others’ freedom of movement by arresting the current situation, which is illegal detention. That is framing and framing. If it is unintentional, it also constitutes an illegal restriction of the freedom of others. Anyway, the vendor is the party at fault, and the money must be compensated. Someone said I don’t know the law? Let me post the basis for the right to twiddle, and simply say when a citizen can arrest a suspect by himself without having to have the public security officers present to deal with it. Focus on the point, if a crime is being committed or an instant discovery is going on, it’s all overnight, can it still be considered instant? I’m afraid it’s not the reflex arc of Argentinosaurus, right? Alright, are you convinced now? Welcome to use legal provisions instead of saliva to refute me. No one knows the law better than me.

greatword
7 months ago

After reading the story of the old lady being wronged, I remembered a very similar news some time ago. [The old man was stopped for stealing eggs, and his family’s claim of 380,000 after his sudden death was dismissed] A 67-year-old man was shopping in a supermarket, he put two eggs in his pocket and wanted to leave. The clerk stopped him for questioning, but the negotiation was unsuccessful. The old man suddenly fell to the ground and died suddenly. The family took the supermarket to court, claiming more than 380,000 yuan. In an interview, the old man’s son repeatedly emphasized that because the old man is “very strong” and “loves face”, the supermarket treats such a “strong” old man in this way, and does not give any “steps” to resolutely stop inquiries, and supermarket employees restrict the freedom of the elderly. It also caused crowds to watch, which was the direct cause of the sudden death of the old man. This is at fault for the sudden death of the old man, so compensation is required. In the case of sudden death when an elderly man was arrested for stealing eggs from a supermarket, the second instance upheld the original judgment: no compensation! In the trial on the 25th, Gu’s family and the supermarket had a heated debate. Finally, the collegiate panel made a second-instance judgment after adjourning the session. The court held that: the supermarket staff in this case negotiated with Gu’s improper behavior. The purpose was to maintain the normal operating order of the supermarket and stop the improper behavior, and the two parties did not take any drastic or excessive actions, which was within a reasonable limit. . If the dissuaded person died suddenly due to his own disease, and his close relatives request the perpetrator to bear tort liability, the people’s court shall not support it. The collegiate panel pointed out that as long as it does not exceed the necessary limit, even others blocking the infringer is recognized by the law. In this case, the supermarket staff pulled Gu’s sleeves and continued to talk to him. The measures to stop misbehavior were justified. Even if Gu was questioned for hiding eggs and was questioned, it caused mood swings, which caused him to fall to the ground due to sudden illness. There is no legal causality between the two. Recently, the Intermediate People’s Court of Nantong City, Jiangsu Province decided the final instance of this supermarket dispute and rejected the family’s request. Talk about your own thoughts. If the egg-stealing case is really won by family members, then there will be more old men and old ladies who rely on the old to sell the old and steal things more brazenly. Anyway, they will lie on the ground when they are stopped, and they will make a claim to the supermarket at the end. Wanli’s business. Of course, this is the premise that the old man did steal, and we have reasons to stand on the moral high ground to criticize. Returning to the old lady who was misunderstood about stealing turtles, the old lady did not steal it! Thanks to the surveillance, the story of how many bowls of fans Liu Zi had eaten will not be staged in contemporary times, but the old lady was finally stunned. The same scene, the same old man, the same suspected stealing, the same result. Only the commanding heights of morality are different. I don’t know how the court will finally decide it. Looking forward to it very much. Recommend everyone a Japanese drama “legal high”, this drama can subvert your outlook on life in minutes, allowing you to think about life from a new perspective, observe good and evil, and remove the heavy moral shackles. So we suddenly discovered that there is no absolute justice in this world. Every party has its own difficulties. We just believe in what we are willing to believe.

loveyou
7 months ago

First of all, there are many people with high blood pressure, especially the elderly, so don’t make the elderly angry anyway. If it is indeed the old man’s fault that it is the old man’s fault, then my husband’s behavior is still worth learning. Background: Our dog has been tying the rope after going out after the full moon. It can be said to be very self-disciplined. But because we were seriously injured by unleashable dogs with people and dogs before, we would take swing sticks when we went out. Yesterday we were walking the dog in the community, and we met an old man riding on a battery to walk their family’s string. It was medium and large, larger than our family’s body, and was not tied to the rope. I saw it once. The community was managed in a closed manner, but the greening was good. Many surrounding residents sneaked in and walked their dogs). His dog was very fierce the first time I met, and I asked him to tie the dog leash. After walking for half a circle, we met again. We turned around and gave way. As a result, his dog rushed up and pounced directly on our dog, ready to bite. My puppies have been under strict control since they were young, and will not be able to defend themselves when they are bitten, so I kicked the other dog away in a stressful manner. The other party was in a hurry, yelling and swearing. Father: Why did you kick my dog, he didn’t bite you! Me: But if it bites my dog, if you don’t control your dog, can’t I just kick it? Old man: I didn’t see it biting your dog. It is just playing. My dog ​​has a very good personality. My husband: The community is full of surveillance. Should we go to see the surveillance together? Father: I don’t care, if you hit my dog, I want to hit your dog! My husband immediately picked up my puppy and stepped back and hid behind me (I seem to be a meat shield?) and whispered to me: “Block him, if he really hits you, things will be easier.” The old man stepped hard. Forcing swear words: a dog is a beast, you know him generally, you are also a beast? ! I was stunned by the old man’s divine logic. At this time, the old man made a beating action (possibly to grab the dog behind me). Then my husband directly stretched out the swinging stick on his hand and said this sentence: Uncle, if you hit someone, you are “picking trouble”. I can beat you up without compensation. There is monitoring. I can also call the police directly without hitting you, so I have to be detained for a few days. If you hit a dog, my dog ​​will cost 100,000 yuan, and it will be transported by air from the United Kingdom, with an invoice, and be mentally prepared for compensation. If you continue to swear, I can also call the police, because your dog is not tied up, fined 1,000, and the dog is trapped. Your best choice is to immediately tie up the dog and take it away. Even if I call the police to come over, it will take time. So the old man, without saying anything, immediately summoned his dog to the battery car and fled the community in a hurry. The logic of reasoning with the “irrational” old man is this: Regardless of whether the other party is right or wrong, we must prevent the other party from continuing to make mistakes (for example, he must protect the dog when he wants to hit my dog). When the other party turns on the “I don’t listen, I don’t listen” mode, do a symbolic gesture to remind the other party to calm down (such as highlighting the swinging stick). Tell the opponent the most serious consequence (threat deterrent effect) after he is impulsive. And the consequences of other choices made by the other party. Put the result with the least loss to the end, and then stop. (Because of excessive tension) People with poor memory can only remember the last one-the least consequence. He will instinctively choose “last item” + “best item”. The above method is completely sufficient for the average unreasonable person. Our attitude in dealing with problems should be “minimize the consequences to a minimum” rather than “make the other party pay a huge price.” Now that people are too hostile, the first reaction is the vengeful mentality of “letting the other party deflate.” But if you understand the “Civil Law” principle of “prioritizing the protection of the legal rights and interests of vulnerable groups”, this means that everyone who can be easily retaliated by you belongs to a vulnerable group relative to you, and the result will be backlashed. . To the old lady, the vendor in question is obviously caught in the vicious circle of “the vengeful psychology of letting the other party eat the other side”. I’m not deceiving, the final result exceeded expectations, so…wait to be backfired~ In the case in the link, the family claimed 400,000 yuan. The court found that both sides were wrong and awarded 120,000 yuan. However, the defendant was in financial constraints and was unable to pay, and finally settled in court at 80,000. Each case has its own particularity. The difference between this topic and the previous case is that the vendor does not know the aunt, let alone that the other person will be pissed to death if he is not in good health (but the linked case is that the other person and the old man are neighbors, know He is not well). Vendors’ methods are excessive and do not conform to legitimate rights protection methods, but it does not rule out that people are blind to the law and do not understand legal rights protection methods. Therefore, it is still possible to compensate for medical expenses + funeral expenses. As for the mental damage fee, it was not supported by the law before, and now the new civil law supports the amount of 100,000. We can only wait and see, continue to pay attention to it~

strongman
7 months ago

Doing business,,, making money with harmony is really the first element, otherwise you should not do it…Don’t say that this old lady did not steal your turtle, you just suspect that she is in your face, directly If you take away a turtle, you can only recognize it. There are not many people of this kind, and you really rarely encounter them. This is the cost that needs to be calculated in business. Otherwise, you will lose because of this turtle. More soft-shelled turtles. Unless you are a supermarket employee, and if something goes wrong, there is a supermarket to support it, you are a small business, can not withstand the toss,,, even if you have no responsibility in the end, the delayed business is considered to be lost,,,

stockin
7 months ago

The deceased is the oldest, and first feels silence for the tragic death of the 68-year-old woman. There are always many accidents in life, and misfortune will come to me inadvertently. I hope everyone will keep a normal attitude when encountering people and things, and don’t be affected by the external environment too much on their emotions or state. I don’t know if you have ever been wronged in public. That feeling is mixed with shame, anger, unwillingness and so on. In a crowded place like a vegetable farm, an elderly person in his 60s or 70s is publicly framed as a thief. The kind of unreasonable unreasonableness under public view can easily lead to extreme physiological situations. Of course, the turtle dealer would definitely not admit that it was intentional, and I also tend to understand that he didn’t deliberately frame the old lady, but said that it was indeed an accident. However, the law is about causation. The result now is that the old man died, how did he die? Because of the controversy caused by the fraudulent behavior of the vendors. This must be responsible for this, even if it is not a criminal liability, it is also a civil liability. How much responsibility should be borne by the redefinition? Of course, there is another problem in this matter: how is the 2 million claim for the family members of the elderly calculated? And the rationality of 2 million. I don’t know how the family members of this accident victim view the problem. Of course, human lives are indeed priceless. For a life, 2 million is higher and lower? But I still prefer to see a trial result that is relatively acceptable to both parties in the lawsuit. There is also a missing question: Is the person who actually robbed turtles to be held accountable? Is there any student who knows more about the law to explain?

11
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x