A few days ago, the “old man supermarket to get eggs was stopped after the sudden death” case, the court ruled to reject the plaintiff’s claim, earlier, the family requested in accordance with the proportion of 50% to the supermarket claim more than 380,000 yuan.
Jiangsu Nantong Chongchuan District Court held that the death of the old man Gu Wenbin (a pseudonym) was caused by the development of his own disease, the supermarket party has done its duty of safety and basic rescue obligations, the plaintiff’s request was rejected, after the verdict, the family appealed.
December 19, the old man’s son Gu Liang (a pseudonym) told reporters that the cause of the matter is the old man in the previous few days to buy the eggs are not fresh and bargaining for the return of fruitless, the old man did take the supermarket two eggs behavior.
He said, “the old man is an old intellectual is not malicious theft, just irrational rights is really not appropriate. But because the lover and the defendant operator know can not testify, now this aspect of the facts have been dead, the family can only eat dumb loss. “
Two eggs
The old man’s family provided surveillance video shows that at 15:17 on June 13 this year, in a supermarket in Nantong, the old man put an egg into the right pocket of his pants (the reporter confirmed that the old man took two eggs respectively at that time), three minutes later, the old man went to the cashier’s checkout is going out, a staff member wearing yellow clothes came forward to stop him, and then the old man followed back.
Another segment of the surveillance shows that 21 minutes, the old man was first pulled by the yellow staff clothes and then let go, then the staff wearing pink clothes to grab the old man clothes, the two sides have had exchanges.
About a minute and a half later, the old man suddenly fell to the ground next to a cooler, pink staff then let go, at this time the old man’s hands and feet briefly twitched after lying flat on the ground, then the staff and onlookers scattered, during which many people in the distance to look.
24 minutes, a woman in black took out a cell phone to make a call.
48 minutes, a man wearing a blue hat came forward to perform cardiopulmonary compressions, onlookers increased, and began to help rescue, which lasted until 57 minutes, police and medical personnel rushed to the scene together to send the old man to the hospital, but eventually the old man died unfortunately due to ineffective resuscitation.
In the view of Gu Liang, the supermarket to restrict the freedom of the elderly and cause mass spectators is the direct cause of the sudden death of the elderly.
“In addition, the surveillance video is not complete, the supermarket party did not call 120 in a timely manner, failing to do their duty of safety and basic rescue obligations of the act, the old man fell to the ground 20 minutes before a passing customer to the old man Chest compressions to take first aid measures, and the supermarket only 20 minutes after the old man fell to the ground to call 120, delaying the rescue time. “
After the incident, he and his mother took the supermarket to court on the right to life dispute, requesting that the defendant be ordered to pay the plaintiff 381,742 yuan in accordance with 50% of the proportion.
But Gu Liang on the first trial verdict is not satisfied, he said his father had been pulled by the supermarket employees rotated 360 degrees, but this section of the surveillance video evidence is missing, and in the old man fell to the ground, the supermarket side only after 20 minutes to call the emergency, and even a shopkeeper in the old man fell to the ground after pointing and laughing, hindering passers-by to confirm the situation of the elderly, etc., so will still continue to appeal.
Myocardial infarction
A “police work registration form” confirmed that the staff wearing pink clothes at the time for the supermarket manager, she said to the police, at that time, she and another colleague found the old man took two eggs in his pants pocket, so the old man stopped and asked whether he had something unchecked, the old man first denied and pulled out the key that did not take something, and then said “before the eggs bought in your supermarket is not fresh, is to retaliate”, and took the two eggs out, ready to leave.
The manager then pulled the old man’s left arm and asked to go upstairs to talk, she told the police, pulling the old man upstairs to talk, for fear of bad influence, considering the face of the elderly.
The supermarket party argued that the old man stole the supermarket eggs while shopping, the price of the eggs was not settled when the goods were settled, and then found by the defendant’s employees, the employees stopped the behavior out of their job responsibilities, asking them to return the supermarket property, while in stopping their theft did not verbally abuse nor beat each other.
When the defendant employee stopped the theft, the old man suddenly fell to the ground and the defendant employee immediately called 110 and 120 for first aid. After the hospital resuscitation failed to die, the hospital diagnosis of myocardial infarction.
Supermarket related person in charge of Mr. Tian told reporters, “that we hide the old man was pulled and rotated 360 degrees monitoring video, is a blatant lie, really fake, fake real. “
At the same time, he said the supermarket staff in stopping the elderly from stealing eggs, neither quarrelsome nor abusive, their behavior within reason. “The old man himself has a disease, the appearance of this result is what we all do not want to see. “
For the supermarket employees in the follow-up rescue behavior, he said, respecting the court’s judgment of the facts found that “our employees are not at fault. “For the follow-up of the elderly family appeal, Mr. Tian said he will actively respond to the lawsuit and respect the legal decision.
Earlier, Mr. Tian told the media that in the process of stopping the elderly, the supermarket employees have always maintained respect for each other, no physical conflict. “The whole process was very short, a few minutes later Mr. Valley fell to the ground. “
He said that supermarkets often encounter thieves, generally require each other to pay after the other party will not be difficult for each other, especially or the elderly. “Supermarket employees see someone take something without checkout, then it is not possible to stand by and watch, they are also in the normal maintenance of the supermarket order. “
Reasonable limits
The court believes that the sudden death of Gu Wenbin for his family is undoubtedly a heavy blow.
The court lamented the sudden death of Gu Wenbin, but also understand the pain of the loss of his spouse, his son’s father’s pain, but in this case whether the defendant should be responsible for the death of Gu Wenbin, what responsibility and the size of responsibility should be judged by the law.
The defendant as a supermarket, within its reasonable limits can advise customers of inappropriate behavior, the case, the defendant found the old man’s misconduct, from the video of the defendant’s employees and the old man there were verbal exchanges, the defendant’s employees pulled the sleeve of the old man with his hand, but the behavior did not exceed the reasonable limits, so the court did not accept the plaintiff’s claim that the defendant’s illegal behavior.
The judgment said that the manager of the public place or the organizer of mass activities, failed to do their duty of safety and security, causing damage to others, shall bear the tort liability.
According to the resident death medical certificate (inferred) book, the cause of death of the old man was myocardial infarction. For sudden cardiac arrest, effective cardiopulmonary resuscitation and early defibrillation at the scene is the key, and 4 to 6 minutes after cardiac arrest is the golden resuscitation time.
The death of the old man was caused by the development of his own disease, and because of the suddenness of his illness, the defendant also called 110 and 120, which has fulfilled the safety and security obligations and basic rescue obligations.
Therefore, the defendant and its staff do not exist in this case, and the defendant and its staff’s behavior and the death of the elderly and no causal relationship. Therefore, the court does not support the plaintiff’s claim.
After the incident, two customers took the initiative to perform chest compressions on Gu Wenbin, the rescue of others is also worth learning and promoting the behavior.
In summary, the court ruled that the plaintiff’s claim is rejected. Case acceptance fee of 2309 yuan, the plaintiff to bear.
Conversation
[1] father was pulled by supermarket employees around
Reporter: When did you know about the father’s accident?
Gu Liang: the afternoon of June 13 this year. Mother received a phone call, we immediately rushed to the supermarket where the crime occurred, on the way to hear that his father had been sent to Nantong City Hospital, and then we immediately went to the hospital.
Reporter: After going to the hospital, what did the doctor say?
Gu Liang: just entered the door doctor said people are gone.
Reporter: Know how to deal with the father after the accident?
Gu Liang: in the road to the hospital I still do not know my father’s safety, at that time to the mother questioned, about the need to transfer the monitor to see. Only later that day in the funeral home received a phone call from the police, to inform us of the situation.
Reporter: Did you see the surveillance at the time of the crime? What is the situation in the monitoring?
Gu Liang: We communicate with the supermarket all done in the police station, the day we saw the surveillance, there is a clear video of the camera aimed at the freezer aisle, filmed my father was pulled around the counter by two supermarket personnel 360 degrees, my father threw his hands to get rid of the process, this paragraph in the subsequent surrender of court evidence disappeared.
The video circulating online is different from the court evidence video, and the court evidence video is different from the video seen at the police station on the night of the murder. The video of the moment of the fall that I saw circulating online is an interception of the court evidence video, and the court surveillance video is missing a key position.
Reporter: What is the key position of the monitoring refers to?
Valley bright: my father in the aisle was pulled by two staff members rotating 360 degrees of the surveillance footage, from the cashier to the freezer aisle this section of the camera position is missing.
【2】 They pointed and heckled
Reporter: You were watching the monitoring what ideas?
Gu Liang: I was outraged to see that the supermarket employees were still gathering and pressuring my father after he had already returned the eggs, yanking back his sleeves, blocking the way with a shopping cart, and forcing him to go upstairs.
If my father did not cooperate, the supermarket could have left the surveillance to report to the police and contacted our families, but I do not see any trace of legality in the act of detaining people, restricting personal freedom and trying to exceed the authority to impose fines.
After my father fell to the ground, some of the supermarket employees were still talking and laughing, and some supermarket staff even obstructed passersby from confirming my father’s condition.
We understand that it is not realistic to ask the staff to help in public, but at least the attitude of dealing with emergency situations must be correct, if not you can even squat down to confirm the nasal breath, shouting can always be, but in the monitoring, my father fell to the ground, the supermarket side to respond in a most negative way, standing, looking, pointing, heckling.
Reporter: Did the supermarket employees call the emergency number at that time?
Gu Liang: mentioned in the first trial, the supermarket employees made a timely emergency call, which simply happened 20 minutes later. In the first 20 minutes, the calls made were not emergency calls, as evidenced by the employee’s own records retrieved from the telecommunications company.
And the first call was surprisingly dialed to the police, saying that my father fell down and made trouble, I have the police records, I think it is unethical to set the victim’s motive of falling down on your own without confirming the real condition of the elderly.
Reporter: the supermarket side has communicated with you about this matter?
Gu Liang: three mediation, the supermarket time and again only two words: “we will not talk about responsibility” “for humanitarian reasons to 20,000 compensation”, I do not approve of this corporate attitude in public safety issues do not talk about responsibility, and the face of the self-proclaimed humanitarian, coupled with the mediation of the other boss has been reluctant to show up to talk, sent agents to play the game of hobnobbing, more determined to defend my rights.
Reporter: Then how do you defend your rights behind?
The night of the incident, the police station saw the monitoring and subsequent public security referred to us monitoring, the key position of the monitoring was replaced, other positions monitoring was partially replaced, found that the monitoring was replaced, I was very angry.
After that, the first trial, we raised the objection of incomplete monitoring in court, the second trial, the defendant self-carved CDs submitted to the court, including the night of the crime, my mother and I have seen, but also some have not seen, but the common point is that they do not have the key camera monitoring.
[3] previously bought spoiled eggs to defend the rights of
Reporter: What kind of person is your father?
Gu Liang: My father is 67 years old, a college graduate, a retired engineer, he is usually particularly honest, work hard, is a good old man, around people let my father to repair an electrical appliance is to respond to requests, do not ask for reward.
Reporter: He usually enough money, you usually will not give him money?
Gu Liang: his pension of more than 5,000, not to mention money, the family bought him eggs before the crime, he was pickled a whole altar, but also ran to the supermarket to buy, and now not eaten, which is also a point of doubt for me.
Reporter: Do you usually live together, how is the relationship?
Valley Liang: living together, on the ordinary people family relationship.
Reporter: How was his mental state before and after the accident?
The company’s main business is to provide a wide range of products and services to the public.
Reporter: Why do you think the father wanted to take the two eggs?
Gu Liang: I know my father’s character, take the supermarket eggs can only have a point, that is to defend the right. Listen to the person who knows, my father went to the supermarket that day, because before the purchase of spoiled eggs to defend the right, at that time should be and supermarket staff communication, but the supermarket side may not recognize, so my father took these two eggs.
Reporter: How was your father’s health before, had a heart attack?
Gu Liang: No heart attack, no history of disease.
Reporter: What do you think of the supermarket’s behavior?
Gu Liang: At that time, my father had made a compromise in the dispute, but the supermarket staff still did not relent, the entire store staff together to my father gathered pressure, which directly led to my father’s self-esteem frustration, blood, and eventually collapsed in cardiac arrest.
After the old man fell to the ground, the supermarket handled the emergency with a negative attitude, with store staff pointing and laughing, laughing at my father along with passing acquaintances, and even imitating the spasms of the injured man who fell to the ground, and also obstructing passing elderly people from confirming my father’s injuries.
In addition, without confirming the condition of the old man, the clerk first called the police and told the police that he had fallen down and made a scene, which not only further stigmatized my father, but also delayed the treatment, and the telecommunication voucher issued at the first trial showed that the real distress call was made 20 minutes later.
[4] There is no reward for family and friends, only to stay away for the time being
Reporter: Some people on the Internet say you are suing for blackmail money, what do you think?
Valley Liang: lawsuit plus taking care of the aftermath, in our town and countryside, spent more than 100,000, the cemetery more than 75,000, about blackmail money, the last mediation before the first trial, we mentioned is 140,000 compensation, they are on the spot hard drag, and finally ended up, as for 380,000, there is something called the division of responsibility, there are explanations online.
Reporter: On this matter, how do relatives and friends feel?
Gu Liang: After the incident they gave me a lot of support and encouragement, there is no way to repay, but to stay away for a while.
Reporter: What is the outcome of the first trial?
Gu Liang: I received the verdict on December 10, was rejected by the Chongchuan District Court.
Reporter: What is the mood when you see the result of the trial?
Gu Liang: relatively uneventful, I think, to see the direction of public opinion has been expected.
Reporter: What is the current plan?
Gu Liang: I will continue to appeal, not only that, I will also fight for justice through all possible legal means, until all the evidence can convince me.
Reporter: Why do you want to continue the appeal?
Gu Liang: testimony, confessions do not match the version, asked many times whether there is pulling, the witness said no, the legal definition of pulling I do not understand, but the action in the surveillance is clearly more than the general social contact, and even more than the scale of past cases, but the court did not accept the letter.
We proposed late emergency calls, the supermarket side should be responsible, combined with relevant evidence, has been able to project and prove that the supermarket side indeed more than 20 minutes to call the emergency, the first trial verdict lightly mentioned and then a hard turn, I do not accept.
The supermarket employees directly caused the old man’s cardiac arrest by restricting my father’s freedom, surrounding him with pressure and blocking his way with a shopping cart, which was ignored by the court of first instance. The supermarket employees’ attitude of disregarding the dignity of life after the old man fell to the ground was also ignored by the court of first instance.
I raised the disappearance of key evidence at the trial, the verdict was not explained positively, and there were no findings of technical intervention, no police station surveillance of that night and its follow-up. And after the disappearance of key evidence proposed, the second session of the first trial, the defendant’s replacement of surveillance is also suspicious.
Reporter: Do you think compensation is important?
Gu Liang: everything to the court’s final judgment shall prevail, compensation is small, the dignity of the deceased is big.
Reporter: What do you hope is the final outcome?
Gu Liang: I hope that the court will make a fair judgment, pay attention to the facts of the evidence, divide the responsibility clearly, eliminate ambiguity, rigorously explain the reasons for the rejection of the claims raised in the first trial, and return the society a clear public opinion environment.
Recent Comments