#上海男子被流浪猫绊倒受伤, the feeder compensated 240,000 yuan ##喂流浪猫赔24万#
In the past two days, the incident of being fed stray cats and paying 240,000 yuan has been swiped on the screen, and the headline homepage has repeatedly pushed me relevant content-
Everyone knows the specific experience, so I won't make up the number of words here.
Everything that can cause heat is nothing more than a controversial issue. Many indignant people say, "Isn't it just feeding a cat?"
It's a good thing to be controversial, the more the truth is debated, the clearer it becomes, so let's take a good look at who is responsible and how much responsibility there is:
First of all, it is clear that the victim Wu's injuries are identified as grade 10 disability, which is objective, if someone does not recognize this, then there is no need to communicate anymore - we have no consensus, isn't it chicken and duck?
Harm means someone is responsible.
Of course, the responsible person is not the same as the infringer, and perhaps the victim should be held responsible......
Some people hold this view, they feel that adults should foresee the risk of injury, and that participating in sports is acquiescing to the risk and claiming compensation for sports injuries is a collision.
Sports have a risk of injury, but that doesn't mean that all sports injuries should be considered unlucky – otherwise there will be no red and yellow cards. If the cause of the injury is not force majeure, then of course responsibility should be pursued.
Specific to this case, if the injury was due to Wu's own improper actions (such as losing his balance by saving the ball too hard), then it is indeed no wonder to others.
But he stepped on the cat. Cats are not normal appendages of the sports field, and athletes cannot be required to foresee the appearance of animals in the field that should be level, so the appearance of cats has a causal relationship with Wu's injury - if someone wants to emphasize the protection of "cat rights", then "the Tao is not the same and does not conspire with each other", and we don't have to communicate anymore.
Someone must say: it is a stray cat, which belongs to uncontrollable factors.
Not really. If the accident occurred in an unmanaged field or his own private area, then Wu did have a duty of care. However, he was playing in a commercially operated arena where the operator (including owners and employees) was obligated to remove facility obstacles that could hinder basic sports, including movable objects. In other words, operators should prevent small animals from entering the venue, condone small animals and interfere with sports, and fail to comply with safety agreements (or tacit agreements). This is infringement.
Speaking of which, have you found the problem? Wu's injured tort liability should include the owner of the stadium, why is the main responsibility in the end Xiao, the long-term feeder of stray cats?
The key is not whether Xiao constitutes de facto breeding, but whether his feeding behavior caused stray cats to stay in the stadium for a long time. Xiao, as a gym worker, should have foreseen that it might pose a safety threat to athletes, but Xiao did not take measures to eliminate the hidden danger. This is the so-called "should be paid attention to and a certain attention, or gullibility can be avoided", Xiao has negligence liability.
Someone raised the bar and said, "If I give alms to the homeless, am I also responsible for the homeless's crimes?" The homeless man is a human being, an independent legal subject, and can take responsibility for his actions, while a cat is not, let alone responsible. There is no comparison between the two.
After arguing the existence of tort and injury liability, it does not mean that I fully agree with the judgment of the Hair Court.
As mentioned earlier, this is a tort case and not an injury case, why do you say that? Because the victim Wu paid to play in a commercially operated stadium, he formed a service contract relationship with the operator (it does not matter whether the contract is signed in writing or not). As long as the damage in the museum is not caused by force majeure, the operator will be liable for tort.
Therefore, this case should be a bilateral lawsuit between Wu and the owner of the stadium, and there is no need to introduce a third party, Xiao, who is indeed negligent, but his feeding behavior and Wu's injury are indirect causal relationships, and the main responsibility lies in the boss's failure to take positive action to stop Xiao from introducing stray cats into the stadium. The liability for compensation to Wu lies with the boss, and as for the losses caused by the misconduct of the employee Xiao, the boss should file a lawsuit against Xiao and handle it in a separate case.
In reality, the two cases are mixed together, Xiao bears the liability for compensation, but the owner of the stadium has become jointly and severally liable, and only needs to compensate for the part of the compensation that Xiao is unable to bear (he can recover from Xiao afterwards). Although this is related to Xiao's refusal to appear in court without a legitimate reason in the later stage, it is still not objective to erase the responsibility of the operator.
This flaw one.
And then there is what everyone criticizes, even if Xiao is responsible, the compensation of 240,000 is too much. This raises the issue of legislation, as tort compensation generally includes medical care and compensation for lost time, which is calculated based on the victim's income level. In fact, this has created the problem of "different lives for the same people", which is contrary to the spirit of the rule of law. Moreover, there is also a very real problem: Xiao may not have sufficient ability to compensate, and may even abscond and refuse to compensate -- what is the use of the more judgment you give if he can't afford to pay compensation? Even if there is a clause for the boss to compensate, do you think that the boss will not run away? It is better to calculate it based on the median income of the local government, which not only avoids artificial inequality, but also makes it more likely to be repaid.
In fact, the law does not clearly stipulate the method of compensation, and the above-mentioned calculation method belongs to local judicial interpretations, so there is no imaginary difficulty in changing it.
This flaw two.
This case tells us that "good faith" (or perceived good faith) is not an exoneration, and you can enjoy the psychological satisfaction of feeding, but you must not endanger the normal activities of others. No one's freedom shall prevail over the freedom of others, and this is where the spirit of freedom lies.