In fact, this thing is very simple, that is, an old man in a certain community went out to exercise and helped the electric car on his way home. Then the electric car fell to the ground and knocked the old man down. It is said that the old man is over 90 years old. At that time, after he fell, his head and soft tissue were injured and his right leg was said to be broken. It cost more than 40 thousand to go to the hospital for treatment.
The family of the old man thinks that the cost of this treatment should be borne by the owner of the electric car. It is said that electric vehicles are suspected of illegal parking, and it is claimed that electric vehicles should be parked in special garages and should not be placed on the roadside at will, which will affect others' travel. If the electric car can stop, the old man won't fall.
To be honest, this reason is a bit far-fetched. After the family members of the elderly demanded compensation, the owner of the electric car also refused, thinking that although he parked the electric car on the side of the road, it did not actually affect the walking of passers-by. If the old man didn't help the electric car, I'm afraid he wouldn't fall. It is said that the owner also tied a surveillance video of the old man falling. As can be seen from the video, the elderly are old, but they lack the companionship of guardians, and their families have an unshirkable responsibility.
At this point, the two sides hold their own words, and it is definitely impossible to reach a settlement. This kind of thing is also a civil dispute. It is estimated that the family members of the elderly will sue the court, and the court may file a case, but it is estimated that it is difficult for the family members of the elderly to win the case.
After all, judging from the whole incident, it was the old man who took the initiative to help the electric car, not the old man passing by. The electric car fell and hurt the old man. If the old man had a guardian or didn't touch the electric car, this kind of thing wouldn't happen.
At the beginning of the article, I said the word vulnerable groups, which is not unreasonable. I once experienced an incident of eating a king's meal. My family runs a convenience store, and this young man had a king's meal next door. He came down from the second floor and smashed the plaque on my door. Under normal circumstances, he should compensate me.
However, after we caught him next door, we called the police, but the police told me this way: "This repair can still be used, so forget it. Fortunately, your dental plaque is very strong. If it is not strong, he stepped on your plaque, fell and hurt himself. Maybe you will be responsible. " I blew it up at once. I said that as a policeman, you should be responsible for what you say. Now I turn on the phone recording, and you repeat what I just said. Finally, he got scared and told me to do whatever I wanted.
Although this matter ended in nothing, I was really angry when I heard this, so I can especially understand the feelings of my host. He didn't do anything wrong himself, but in the end he had to bear the responsibility. It would be interesting if the court awarded him compensation for this matter.