Not long ago, Ms. Teng in a supermarket shopping after taking the supermarket's free shuttle bus home. When the bus came around the corner on Huma Road, Ms. Teng got up and was ready to get off, when the right rear tire suddenly blew out. The accident happened just before Ms. Teng sat in the lower part of the seat, and the direction of the explosion on the inside of the car, a huge shock wave instantly lifted off the upper part of the tire tin, and accompanied by body fragments flew into the car, standing next to the Ms. Teng took the brunt of the injury. Countless particles of debris flew into the skin of her upper body, making her jaw, neck, abdomen and other injuries, and her pants were also blown open a big hole.
Afterwards, Ms. Teng found the supermarket to negotiate, hoping to be compensated for her medical expenses, lost wages, and appropriate additional compensation, but the supermarket told her to look for the fleet of vehicles to which the shuttle bus belonged to negotiate and compensate. So, Ms. Teng went to the fleet 3 times to negotiate, so she was angry, the other responsible for the reception of the staff's attitude is rude, and is not willing to bear additional compensation. This has been repeated many times, and the round-trip fare alone has cost Ms. Teng a lot of money, but the matter remains unresolved.
Review
Shanghai Municipal Bureau of Transportation, a recent statistics show that Shanghai's hypermarket shuttle lines in just three years doubled, has reached more than 840, accounting for almost half of the number of bus routes in Shanghai. Undeniably, the opening of free shuttle buses to the supermarket has brought a great source of customers, but usually negligent maintenance, which hides the hidden safety hazards are worrying. According to statistics, most of the stores are leasing cars, only a small number of self-provided. So in case of customer accidents during the ride who will be responsible for it?
Providing free shuttles does not mean that supermarkets are exempt from responsibility for safety. Fu Dingsheng, a professor at the East China University of Political Science and Law, believes that "customers should still demand responsibility from the supermarket side in case of such incidents." First is the relationship between the supermarket and the customer, the customer always thought that the shuttle bus is provided by the supermarket, the supermarket to provide free shuttle bus is also one of the items of service, as the operator should make a commitment to the safety of the customer's ride, this obligation to protect the safety of the implied. Secondly, the relationship between the supermarket and the leasing company, the occurrence of passenger injuries after the supermarket compensation can be in accordance with the lease agreement to the leasing company to recover. Passengers of the contractual counterparty for the supermarket, so customers can be held liable to the supermarket side.
Ding Yisheng, professor of law at the East China University of Political Science and Law, believes that the formation of a service contract between the supermarket and the customer should ensure the safety of the customer, and the free shuttle bus is responsible for the obligations attached to this contract. Customers can pursue responsibility to the supermarket, but also to the supermarket and car rental company together.
B . Looting promotional eggs old lady fell broken ribs
June 2006 day, the city's Putuo District, a large supermarket held a "promotional activities", the sale of eggs at a much lower price than usual. Nearby residents lined up to buy them, and 78-year-old Wang joined the queue after hearing the news. When the event began, the crowd rushed to the sales point, and Mrs. Wang was also caught in the middle. But more and more people, not waiting for Mrs. Wang to the point of sale, in order to avoid others, was behind the crowded up customers knocked to the ground. Mrs. Wang lay on the ground and cried out in pain. Supermarket staff found, rushed to the old lady Wang sent to a nearby hospital for treatment. The doctor diagnosed that one of Wang's ribs was broken.
Wang old lady that in the process of buying eggs, because the supermarket staff did not effectively maintain order, resulting in her being crowded behind the crowd knocked down and injured, and therefore demanded that the supermarket to compensate for medical costs, nutritional costs, moral damages, etc. *** total of more than 8,000 yuan. Supermarkets believe that there were more customers, supermarket staff have been timely diversion. Wang was in the avoidance of other customers accidentally fell and was injured, and after the incident, the staff sent Wang to Liqun Hospital for treatment, and paid part of the medical expenses. The supermarket was neither at fault for Mrs. Wang's injuries, nor did it fully fulfill its management obligations. On the contrary, Mrs. Wang should be aware of the crowded conditions of customers in the promotional activities, taking into account their own physical fitness, it is not appropriate to shop in the crowded customers, the plaintiff was at fault for his injury.
Review
The court held that the defendant supermarket as a legal person engaged in business activities, should do its duty of safety, its promotional activities should be fully aware of the protection of customers' personal and property safety, to avoid the occurrence of the fact of damage, the defendant is not within reasonable limits of the obligation to do its duty of safety, to the defendant shopping for the customer crowded and fell down and injured, the defendant. The defendant's behavior is at fault, should bear the corresponding liability.
And the plaintiff as an old man, should be fully aware of their own physical condition, avoid to crowded places, in order to protect their own safety, now the plaintiff to its own failure to safeguard the duty of safety, to the fact that the damage occurred, the plaintiff's behavior is also at fault, according to the law should bear a certain degree of responsibility.
The court finally ruled that the defendant should bear 80% of the civil liability, the plaintiff to bear 20% of the civil liability, supermarkets need to pay the cost of Wang Laotai *** more than 4000 yuan.
C . Theft of hosted items who bear the responsibility for compensation
Mr. Zhao lives in Changning Road, weekdays after work will often go to the supermarket to buy some vegetables or daily necessities. Not long ago, he and the usual, first to the entrance to the supermarket locker after the coin deposit box to carry their own briefcases stored in, by hand will be the password single put into the trouser pocket.
After shopping, Mr. Zhao found that no matter how to enter the password that box is not open. In desperation, he called the staff. With the assistance of the staff, the box was opened. However, the contents of the box have disappeared. In the process of discussing compensation, the two sides have always been on the compensation amount of this issue is difficult to reach agreement.
Review
Fu Dingsheng, a professor at the East China University of Political Science and Law, believes that "as long as the quality of the storage box itself is not a problem supermarkets and clear warnings, supermarkets on the self-service storage box hosting the lost things are not responsible for". Customers themselves chose the self-service locker instead of the manual service desk hosting. According to the "Consumer Rights and Interests Protection Law," Article 18 provides: "The operator shall ensure that the goods or services provided by the operator in line with the requirements for the protection of personal and property safety. For goods and services that may jeopardize the safety of persons and property, they shall provide consumers with truthful explanations and clear warnings, as well as descriptions and labels on the proper use of the goods or acceptance of the service and ways to prevent the occurrence of hazards." If the manufacturer of the automatic storage box manufacturers in the box cabinet has been expressly prohibited to put cash and valuables, the supermarket also through the "free automatic storage cabinet precautions" to explain this, then the behavior can be recognized as having been correctly warned to consumers.
Typical case of reckless security guards mistakenly hit the customer the court ordered the supermarket compensation
Originally into the supermarket shopping, but unexpectedly the security guards as a thief punched and kicked. The customer Mr. Ma has been wronged for no reason, to the supermarket to negotiate always but can not get a satisfactory answer. So, he was furious that the supermarket sued the court. A few days ago, Putuo District Court ruled that the supermarket compensation for Mr. Ma's losses of more than 3,000 yuan.
According to the plaintiff, Mr. Ma said, February 11, 2006 afternoon, he came to the city of a large supermarket shopping. When he walked to the door of a fast-food restaurant in the supermarket, he saw a security guard grabbing a middle-aged man and questioning him. He did not care at the time, but just as he was about to walk past the entangled two men, the security guard suddenly grabbed him as well. At that moment, the security guards next to him gradually gathered around and held him with his hands behind his back. When he questioned the security guard about why he was being arrested, the guard said that Mr. Ma and the middle-aged man were in cahoots and were both thieves who stole alcohol from the supermarket. He immediately indicated that he had just entered the supermarket and could not be a thief, but the security guards did not listen to the explanation and dragged him to the security office on the second floor by grabbing him and beating him several times in the office, causing multiple injuries to his head and lower abdomen.
Afterward, supermarket staff realized that Mr. Ma was not a thief at all, but a customer who had just entered the supermarket by watching the surveillance video. But instead of apologizing to him, the supermarket unjustifiably accused him of misleading the security guards with his antics and denied beating him.
The defendant supermarket discernment, between the plaintiff and the defendant because of misunderstanding in the process of arrest produced physical collision caused the plaintiff's injuries, the defendant's security guards did not beat the plaintiff, the defendant does not exist intentionally, but agreed to vouchers compensation for the medical expenses, transportation costs, on nutritional costs also agreed to pay.
Putuo District Court in the trial, in order to verify the injuries, according to the plaintiff's application, the court also commissioned an appraisal of Mr. Ma's injuries to do the appraisal of Mr. Ma's head and face, confirmed the fact that Mr. Ma head and face were beaten.
Putuo District Court after hearing that: the plaintiff to the defendant supermarket shopping, the defendant's security guard was mistaken for a thief and was arrested, during which the plaintiff was injured in the facts clear, the evidence is conclusive, according to the police station of the relevant transcript material, the plaintiff was injured due to the defendant's security guards beatings caused by the defendant, although the defendant emphasized that the plaintiff's injuries are its misunderstanding, is the arrest process, but after the consequences of the damage, it should be Fault behavior to take positive and effective remedies to properly resolve the dispute. Therefore, the defendant shall bear the corresponding civil liability for its security guards to implement the fault behavior. Finally, the court ruled that the defendant compensation for the plaintiff's costs *** totaling more than 3400 yuan.
The contractor judge told the author: in recent years, the supermarket theft cases occur repeatedly, but the supermarket rights protection measures must be legal and reasonable, like this case, such as indiscriminate customers beat up, not only can't have any effect on the theft, but instead of bringing pain to the innocent. Not only to the supermarket to take responsibility, but also to the supermarket's reputation will bring great damage.
Reminder items sent to the artificial service desk to save evidence to avoid disputes
Reporter investigations found that the general storage box on the requirements of the customer can not be stored valued more than 200 yuan of valuables on the word. At the same time, as long as the quality of the storage cabinet itself is not defective, with the function of intact use, loss is the customer's own responsibility. So experts remind customers to send bags before reading the notice, and be careful, to do their own property is responsible for, if there are valuables try to carry or send in the artificial service desk.
Experts also reminded consumers: In order to avoid the occurrence of such things, or to start from their own personal safety and property security is responsible for the carry-on items should also pay attention to the custody, so as to avoid crowded in the crowd of people were stolen or squeezed. If consumers want to go to the judicial channel to defend their rights, then we must pay attention to the preservation of evidence, such as supermarket shopping list, cash registers, and so on. East China University of Political Science and Law, Sociology Department Director Prof. Li Jianyong believes that the reason why the supermarket such security risks occur frequently and his own high traffic characteristics have a lot to do, in the limited space, people in close contact, it is easy to violate the personal rights of the incident. For this kind of incident, should strengthen the legal propaganda, so that citizens know their rights and the duties of supermarket staff, so that citizens can be clear when things happen to their rights, better protect themselves. At the same time, supermarkets should also strengthen supervision and management, equipment should be improved, such as increasing the number of cameras.