The septuagenarian walks in the small square,
He was injured when he was knocked down by a boy's pet dog.
After the elderly were hospitalized for nearly a month,
Tragically killed.
The old man was knocked down by a dog and fell
Died 26 days later
At about 20:20 on November 27, 2019, the ninety-year-old Lao Gan was walking on the side of the road in a small square in Huli District, Xiamen City, when a 9-year-old boy Xiao Rong led a pet dog, and the old man fell to the ground after the pet dog touched Lao Gan.
After the accident, Lao Gan was sent to zhongshan hospital affiliated to Xiamen University for treatment, and after diagnosis, Lao Gan fractured his left femur and a skin laceration on his left wrist, and then underwent surgery. After the operation, Lao Gan developed symptoms such as coughing up blood and dyspnea. On December 12 of the same year, the hospital issued a "Notice of Critical Illness". In the absence of a significant improvement in treatment and the difficulty of reversing his condition, Lao Gan was discharged from the hospital on December 23 and died on the day of discharge.
After the incident, the two sides did not reach an agreement on compensation matters, and Lao Gan's three sons sued Xiao Rong and his legal guardian Mr. Lin and his wife to the court.
Died on the day of discharge
Who bears the responsibility?
Old Gan's children
Lao Gan's children believe that Xiao Rong's dog tripping over the elderly has caused such consequences, and his parents, as guardians, should bear the responsibility and request compensation of more than 440,000 yuan.
Xiao Rong's parents
Xiao Rong's parents admitted that it was a fact that the dog led by the child tripped the old man, but they believed that the collision would not directly lead to death, Lao Gan was old, suffering from chronic diseases such as coronary heart disease, and his body was weak, he died because of the sharp deterioration of his condition after surgery, and finally Lao Gan's children proposed to be discharged, and the old man died on the day of discharge.
In court, Mr. Lin and other defendants replied that the slight collision of Xiao Rong's dog only caused the damage consequences of Lao Gan's fall and fracture, and the old man was originally old, and had a number of previous medical histories such as coronary heart disease, which led to his own inherent disease. Therefore, the defendant only needs to bear the liability for the loss caused by Lao Gan's fracture, and does not need to bear the liability for lao Gan's death.
The court held after trial
Lao Gan was hospitalized after the dog led by Xiao Rong fell, was discharged from the hospital without significant improvement in treatment and the condition was difficult to reverse, and died on the day of discharge, so it can be determined that there is a causal relationship between the dog led by Xiao Rong touching Lao Gan and Lao Gan's death, and Xiao Rong should bear the corresponding tort liability.
According to Article 78 of the Tort Liability Law, if an animal is raised and causes damage to others, the animal keeper or manager shall bear no-fault liability. Although Lao Gan's personal physical condition has a certain impact on the occurrence of the damage consequences, this is not the fault of the tort liability law and other laws, and Lao Gan should not be responsible for the impact of his personal physical condition on the occurrence of the damage consequences. Therefore, Lao Gan is not at fault for the occurrence or expansion of damage, and there is no situation of mitigating or reducing Xiao Rong's liability. Also, because Xiao Rong is a person with limited capacity for civil conduct, the responsibility borne by Xiao Rong in this case should be borne by his guardian Mr. Lin and his wife.
During the trial, various losses such as medical expenses and death compensation were also determined, with a total cost of more than 390,000 yuan.
The Huli Court rendered a first-instance judgment
Ask Mr. Lin and his wife to give Lao Gan three sons
Payment of medical expenses, death compensation
A total of more than 390,000 yuan
After the first instance judgment
The defendant appealed
recently
The Xiamen Intermediate People's Court made a second-instance ruling
The appeal was dismissed and the original judgment was upheld
Judge's Statement
Falls are associated with death
Dog owners should be held accountable
The focus of the dispute in this case is
Whether Mr. and Mrs. Lin should be on the same page
Old Gan is liable for his death
Article 78 of the Tort Liability Law of the People's Republic of China stipulates: "Where an animal is raised that causes damage to others, the animal keeper or manager shall bear tort liability, but if it can be proved that the damage was caused by the intentional or gross negligence of the infringed person, he may not bear or mitigate the liability." It can be seen that in cases of animal damage to humans, the liability of the animal breeder or manager cannot be reduced unless the victim has intentional or gross negligence.
In this case, the dog led by Xiao Rong touched Lao Gan, which was the direct cause of Lao Gan's fall and fracture, and Lao Gan was not at fault for this;
Lao Gan was not at fault for presenting for a fracture and undergoing surgical treatment in the case that the medical institution diagnosed him with indications for surgery;
After Lao Gan's surgery, he had symptoms such as dyspnea, oxygenation and difficulty maintaining blood pressure, and there was no significant improvement after treatment, and the family discharged him from the hospital under the condition that his condition was difficult to reverse, which was in line with the customs of southern Fujian, and there was no fault.
Lao Gan is old and has a previous medical history such as coronary heart disease, the postoperative prognosis is poor, the risk of complications is high, and his postoperative critical illness does not exceed the reasonable foreseeable range, and there is a legal causal relationship between Lao Gan's fall fracture and the consequences of his death in the absence of evidence of other tortive factors.
Although Lao Gan's personal physical condition has a certain degree of impact on the expansion of his damage, his personal physical condition is not a fault in the legal sense, nor is it a cause of obstruction of causal relationship, in the case that Lao Gan himself has no fault for the occurrence of this case, Mr. Lin and Liu Moumei only claim to reduce liability for compensation based on their personal past medical history and other physical conditions.
Source: Straits Herald, Guangzhou Daily, etc