Recently, the CCTV12 Social and Legal Channel of China Central Radio and Television reported on the infringement case handled by Judge Xue Yan of the First Civil Division of the Third Intermediate People's Court of Beijing, telling about the lawsuit caused by a cherry.
One evening in July 2018, Ms. Zhang went shopping at a boutique supermarket in Chaoyang District, and when she walked to the bread section, she suddenly slipped on the soles of her feet and knelt there. The severe pain left Ms. Zhang with no time to think about the cause of the incident and observe her surroundings, so she quickly called the emergency number. It didn't take long for the medical staff of the emergency center to rush to the supermarket and conduct a preliminary examination and bandaging for Ms. Zhang. Accompanied by the relevant person in charge of the supermarket, Ms. Zhang was safely transferred to the hospital and received timely treatment. When she arrived at the hospital, she was examined and found to have a fractured patella.
In the following nearly half a year, Ms. Zhang negotiated with the supermarket on the issue of compensation several times while undergoing treatment. However, she never received a satisfactory answer. The supermarket insisted that on the day of Ms. Zhang's fall, they had paid 20,000 yuan for her hospitalization in the hospital out of humanitarian considerations, so they believed that the matter should be properly resolved. But Ms. Zhang disagreed, saying that after the incident, she often weakened her knees when she walked, and then she would fall. She believes that her rights and interests are not fully protected.
Ms. Zhang is not very old, she is in her 30s, her figure is relatively standard, and her weight is not large. At the time of the fall, there were not many people in the supermarket, and no one else touched her. Ms. Zhang didn't know what caused her to fall when she fell, and after falling to the ground, she paid attention to the ground, and then found that the real murderer appeared on the ground, which was actually a cherry.
Who left this cherry? If there is no conclusive evidence, can the court order the supermarket to continue to pay compensation until Ms. Zhang has fully recovered? In order to fully prepare for the lawsuit, Ms. Zhang listened to the advice of a professional lawyer with these questions. Unexpectedly, the lawyer's reply was to ask Ms. Zhang to prepare relevant evidence. But at that time, the pain in her heart had left Ms. Zhang with no time to take care of it, and she couldn't think of collecting evidence in the first place. What made Ms. Zhang even more angry was that when she asked the supermarket for the video after she recovered from her illness, the supermarket told her that the information had been lost. There was no way, Ms. Zhang had no choice but to walk into the courthouse with the attitude of trying it out.
After a year and a half of rehabilitation, Ms. Zhang took a supermarket in Beijing to court for violating her right to health. The subject matter of Ms. Zhang's lawsuit is more than 200,000 yuan, which is her medical expenses and lost work expenses. She underwent a total of two medical treatments, and during the litigation, she was determined to be a grade 10 disability by judicial appraisal, and the compensation calculated according to the compensation coefficient was more than 200,000 yuan.
In the face of Ms. Zhang's claim for more than 200,000 yuan in compensation, the defendant supermarket also felt a little wronged. The supermarket had no objection to Ms. Zhang's fall, but they believed that they were not at fault and were not responsible. The supermarket said that they were equipped with patrol personnel and carried out regular inspections and cleaning, and there was no fault of its own. Ms. Zhang's fall was only an accident and she was not obliged to pay further compensation.
As the parties disagreed greatly on the amount of compensation, the focus of the dispute gradually expanded from the amount of compensation to more details. The supermarket claimed that one of the reasons for Ms. Zhang's fall injury was that Ms. Zhang was wearing inappropriate clothing, that is, the shoes she stepped on under her feet, a pair of flip-flop sandals, and they believed that Ms. Zhang was at fault. Ms. Zhang believes that she is not at fault for the shoes entering and leaving a supermarket. Ms. Zhang said that the shoes were rubber soles instead of foam soles, and she also approached the customer service of the shoe seller, who said that the flip-flops were non-slip.
In the first instance, it was found that the supermarket was not obviously at fault, but only had some defects in cleaning. Ms. Zhang did not accept the court of first instance's judgment that Ms. Zhang was primarily responsible, and appealed to the court of second instance, demanding that the supermarket compensate her for medical expenses, lost work expenses, and various expenses, including disability compensation, totaling more than 540,000 yuan.
The court of second instance examined the basic facts of the case and found that none of the materials in the file could reflect the true state of the incident at the time of the incident, because the two parties were completely consistent in the description of the time and area where the accident occurred, and both parties also admitted that it was indeed a lost cherry that caused Ms. Zhang's fall and injury, so the court of first instance did not obtain video materials. The court of second instance held that the court, as a duty to ensure the safety of public places, wanted to find out who the victim was, so it requested the supermarket to provide the video.
Within a few days, the supermarket sent the CD to the court. In the video, a person wearing a supermarket clerk's costume pushed a shopping cart to the video surveillance screen, and as he walked over, something appeared on the ground, and the location where Ms. Zhang slipped and fell should be the "culprit" that caused Ms. Zhang's fall, that is, the little cherry. A waiter at the supermarket walked over from a nearby counter to see what was on the ground. When she had finished reading it, she didn't do anything and turned away.
The court held that it could be determined from the video recording that the harmful substance itself was caused by the supermarket, and that the salesperson who was pushing the shopping cart at that time did not pay attention to check whether the packaging of the cherries in his shopping cart was in good condition, and went to deliver the cherries, which was inappropriate in itself. Immediately after a few customers stepped on the cherries and left, there were already supermarket waiters who found out about the problem, if she had disposed of the remaining cherries at that time, picked them up, or put up a yellow warning sign, the accident could have been completely avoided. But it is very regrettable that she left. Eventually, Ms. Zhang hurried over to the cherry pit and stepped on the cherry pit with one foot, causing her to lean and fall.
The case was heard in the second instance of the Beijing No. 3 Intermediate People's Court. During the court investigation stage, the supermarket explained and explained the cherry spilling incident and the failure of the relevant service personnel to deal with it in a timely manner. The supermarket argues that it is innocent, and the aunt cleans without interruption between floors. The supermarket also once pointed out that the service staff at the outsourced counter was not from the supermarket, but the female employee wore the supermarket's uniform.
The court held that the internal contractual relationship between the supermarket and the counter did not affect the parties' right to claim compensation from the supermarket. At the time of the incident, Ms. Zhang was turning her head to look for other goods, and she was walking relatively fast, without looking at the road under her feet. In this case, Ms. Zhang also bears some responsibility. In the end, the court of second instance ruled that the supermarket should bear 70% of the liability, Ms. Zhang should bear 30% of the liability, and the supermarket should compensate Ms. Zhang more than 160,000 yuan.
With the verdict of the second instance, the case has finally settled. A small cherry not only causes physical pain to customers, but also teaches the business a lesson. In addition to giving both parties a result, the court's judgment also has the role of demonstration and guidance, guiding enterprises through judgments, strengthening professionalism, and hoping that enterprises can learn lessons from them, make up for their own shortcomings, and continuously improve service levels.
Video source: CCTV News
Contributed by Beijing Third Intermediate People's Court
Editor: Ma Yuan, Guo Jin
Review: Zhang Lei