Mr. Liu in Wuhan was parked in the charging electric vehicle downstairs. The thief was seen by the thief.The family members of the thief claimed to Mr. Liu 200,000 compensation, and one point was not less.In the end, the owner compensated the spiritual loss of 50,000 yuan.Mr. Liu said that he lived in an old community. The owner's electric vehicle stopped randomly. Everyone was charging this way. The reason why it happened was because of heavy rain, and the battery leakage pushed the thief to die.
The family members of the thief claimed to Mr. Liu 200,000. I really do n’t know what the reason is. Is the owner responsible for ensuring the personal safety of the carbatan?Even if the court coordinated 50,000 compensation in the end, I don't think it makes sense.What we want to ask is why the owner should compensate the family members of the thief 50,000 yuan?
From a legal point of view, this case is a dispute over general infringement liability. If the owner is judged that the owner has the liability for infringement, it must meet the constituent elements of infringement, including: the cause and effect between the fault, the consequences of the damage, the fault and the consequences of the damage, these three these three, these three these three, these three these three, these three these three, these three these three, these three these three, these three these three, these three these three, these three these three, these three these three, these three three, these three these three, these three three, these three, these threeThere is no one for individuals, and the liability for infringement cannot be established.
Now, the death of the thief's electric shock seems to have serious consequences.But first, does the owner Mr. Liu exist in infringement?The owner stopped, and the private charging did violate the system of the community, but this situation does not infringe on the thief. How can a thief not steal the battery car?Is the thief stolen the right to be a legal right?
The biggest problem here is that the death of the thief and the charging of the owner have no necessary causal relationship.If the thief does not go to steal the car, it is impossible to shock, and other car owners are parking charging charging. Why are they not responsible because the thief did not go to steal other car owners' electric vehicles.If you have to investigate the cause and effect, I said that even God should be responsible for mdash; mdash; if it wasn't for the rain, the electric car may not leak electricity, and the thief would not be killed by electricity.
The author insists that Mr. Liu does not constitute infringement for the death of the thief. Even if Mr. Liu has fault, there is no necessary causal relationship with the death of the thief.The court asked Mr. Liu to compensate 50,000 yuan, which seemed to be more like sympathy for thieves. It also practiced who has been popular in the society in recent years.It was rational and compensated as soon as he died, and the so -called causal relationship was misunderstood in law.
Take the nationwide Zhengzhou elevator to persuade smoke to death as an example. The family members of the deceased Duan Moumou believe that if Yang did not discuss Duan Moumu smoking, the two would not have a mouthful, Duan Moumou would not die, so Yang would not die, so Yang Yang would not die, so Yang would not die, so Yang Yang would not die, so Yang would not die, so Yang Yang would not die, so Yang would not die.There is a causal relationship with Duan Moumou's death. The court in the first instance recognized this understanding and ordered Yang to compensate Duan Moumu.Fortunately, the court in the second instance clearly explained the meaning of the legal cause and effect mdash; MDASH; although the consequences of the consequences of the dissertation of Duan Moumou and Duan Moumou's death, from time to time, the consequences of Duan Moumou died, but the two between the twoThere is no legal cause and effect, so Yang should not bear the liability for infringement.
Recently, the court also had a similar judgment: when Liu drove the agricultural tricycle normally, Liu was rearred by a motorcycle, and the rear -end driver Zeng Mou drunk and drove without a license. He died on the spot during the accident.Liu is responsible for the main responsibility.Liu was charged with a traffic accident and was sentenced to one year and three months in the first trial.The Guangzhou Intermediate People's Court sentenced Liu to be innocent, because Liu's illegal act is not an inevitable cause of the accident. Zengmou collided with the vehicle driven by Liu from behind to die on the spot. Therefore, major accidents were not caused by Liu's illegal act.Its behavior does not constitute a crime of traffic accidents.
In this case, although Liu's vehicle braking system and lighting system were unqualified, of course, his behavior was also illegal driving, but the above -mentioned violations were not the inevitable cause of the accident.After the collision, Liu continued to leave the scene, which was not the direct cause of the death of the victim, and had no direct causality with the death of the victim.Therefore, even if the traffic police judge that Liu has administrative responsibility, it does not mean criminal responsibility.
Back to the case mentioned at the beginning of this article, the death of the thief's electric shock is not the inevitable result of Mr. Liu's chaos, but an accident caused by the thief's stealing behavior, so Mr. Liu should not bear any responsibility.If the thief's death is pitiful, let Mr. Liu pay compensation. Will this compensation become a placement or condolences?
