The court's decision is correct. The man himself damaged the public equipment based on his own behavior, causing an electric shock, and the responsibility lies with himself. The reasons for family members' claims are not justified and stipulated, and will naturally be rejected.
For the personal casualties caused by this theft problem, the court has made a clear judgment that this claim scheme is not recognized after detailed case information and specific accident investigation report, and the man also paid the price because of his selfish and destructive behavior of state official duties.
I think the court's decision is correct.
after accepting the case, the court passed the investigation evidence of the on-site police and the related situation of the patient's death being electrocuted. Confirmed that this was a theft case. And the victim's companion has arrived at the electric shock site many times before, and there is no electric shock accident. Obviously, the plaintiff believes that the behavior of going to the toilet to cause electric shock is not established. The power company has no responsibility and needs to compensate the related funds and medical expenses of the deceased. I think the court's decision is very correct.
the man's electric shock is his own responsibility.
since he is a thief, it is impossible to involve the electric power company in the act of electrocution, because his theft itself is destroying the public facilities of the state and electric power units. If the other party succeeds, it will not only lead to sudden power failure in a region, but also make electricians spend a lot of energy and time in subsequent maintenance and reassembly. Therefore, the man's accidental electric shock itself lies in his own responsibility and has not been deliberately guided by the power company.
the reasons for family members' claims are groundless and will naturally be rejected.
For this reason, the reason why the family members claimed compensation from the power company for the victim's death is totally groundless and absurd. The court will naturally reject this situation by passing the legal provisions of our country and clarifying this fact.