Recently, a claim case for the elderly caused by an elevator accident in a shopping mall in Meishan, Sichuan Province has once again ignited controversy on the Internet. The case occurred in a large shopping mall, where an elderly man in his 70s passed by the elevator with a cardboard box in both hands and accidentally fell to the ground.
A few hours later, the old man died of a cerebral hemorrhage and was held accountable by his family. But in the end, both the mall and the court ruled that the old man caused the accident himself, and the mall was not responsible. This judgment has sparked controversy in all walks of life.
So, behind this case, is the position of the mall and the court that "you don't have to pay if you fall down" appropriate? Should the elderly be cared for and helped? Is an elevator accident enough to kill an elderly man? How is the responsibility for the accident divided? As a member of society, we should think deeply about the value orientation behind this.
From a humanitarian point of view, we should provide more compassion for the elderly and children of vulnerable groups. An elderly man in his 70s falls in a public place and has difficulty holding things with his hands and feet, which itself has certain hidden dangers.
Loading...
If you can help and support in time, it is possible to avoid accidents. As a public place, shopping malls should do a good job of safety precautions in facilities and provide convenience and assistance to personnel to avoid irreparable consequences.
Older people are in a complex state, and even small falls can have irreversible consequences. Especially for people in their 70s, a single impact can mean the end of life. From this point of view, the shopping mall did not support the elderly in time at that time, which may be one of the reasons.
The court's argument that the "main cause" of the accident ignored the humanitarian obligations of the mall at the time, focused too much on the legal details, and ignored the purpose of human rights protection.
With the deepening of the aging society, the rights and interests of vulnerable groups in public places need to be valued and protected. As a large shopping mall, it should consciously assume certain social responsibilities, consider the needs of vulnerable groups, and achieve barrier-free convenience. This is not only a legal responsibility, but also a humanitarian and social progressive choice.
Judging from the case itself, is the old man's fall really "completely" out of himself? Is the elevator "sure" that there are no hidden dangers? We can't say for sure. But in the long run, it is important to foster a social environment of mutual support and mutual understanding.
If shopping malls and courts can look at this incident with a more open mind and seek more space to protect the rights and interests of vulnerable groups, it will be a good move to promote social progress.
This case reminds us that striking a balance between convenience and human rights, and showing more compassion and help to the vulnerable, is an important step in building a harmonious society. If shopping malls and courts can re-examine their thinking on the humanitarian level, it will be beneficial for society to further improve.
This not only involves the narrow definition of legal responsibility, but also involves the core value orientation of a society. The progress of an era often requires us to find a balance between law and human rights, efficiency and mercy.
For this case, if the shopping mall can take the initiative to admit a certain element of responsibility and express its deep condolences to the elderly victims, it will send a positive signal to the society that our care for vulnerable groups in public places is not only limited to the minimum legal standards, but also includes humane care.
The court can also rationally determine whether the shopping mall has a certain ethical responsibility that can be discussed, so as not to stay in the narrow "main cause" theory and ignore the overall judgment of various factors.
Every individual is equal before the law. But in the face of humanity, vulnerable people often need more care. This case may prompt us to reshape our perception of the elderly, who need not only living space, but also the dedication and support of all sectors of society. This will be the progress needed by the current Chinese aging society based on the spirit of humanity and good-neighborliness.
By revisiting this case, it is clear that if the malls and the courts can express a more humane and enlightened attitude, they will have a profound impact on society. Perhaps the best outcome of this case will be to encourage more institutions to adopt concepts and practices that serve vulnerable groups, while also pointing the way to the soundness of relevant norms. This will be a new starting point for promoting social progress.