In the past few years, square dancing has suddenly become popular in China, and even became popular abroad for a time.
But who would have thought that this sport, which is suitable for all ages, almost brought Sister Yang a debt of 600,000 yuan!And she was originally saving people!
In a community in Wuhan, Hubei, there are few people who like square dancing who don't know Sister Yang.
Because Sister Yang not only knows how to dance herself, but also likes to dance with the people around her. Even people who have no talent can dance a few sections, so everyone likes Sister Yang very much, and they are willing to listen to Sister Yang's arrangement to dance.
Just in 2022, Sister Yang posted a message in the WeChat group saying that if you have time, I hope everyone can come to rehearse tomorrow morning.
And the next day, everyone came as scheduled, including Uncle Zhang.
But it didn't take long for everyone to suddenly find Uncle Zhang lying on the ground with a painful face, and everyone immediately stopped dancing and surrounded Uncle Zhang in an attempt to rescue.
Seeing this, Sister Yang immediately performed artificial respiration on Uncle Zhang, and even found a doctor to rescue Uncle Zhang while waiting for the ambulance, but in the end there was no effect.
After a diagnosis from the hospital, the doctor confirmed that Uncle Zhang died of sudden cardiac death.
Although everyone is very sad, but for the cause of Uncle Zhang's death, Uncle Zhang's family believes that the problem is all on Sister Yang.
They believe that the activities organized by Sister Yang, then Sister Yang should be responsible for Uncle Yang's life, that is to say, now Uncle Zhang has died because of dancing, so Sister Yang should compensate.
But Sister Yang thinks this is simply nonsense, because there has never been an accident among so many people she has taught over the years, and she has also actively rescued Uncle Zhang after his accident, so it cannot be determined that this is her responsibility.
Because people on both sides argued about this, Uncle Zhang's children also sued Sister Yang in court.
Uncle Zhang's sons and daughters have the following views:
1.Sister Yang is the initiator of square dancing and other activities, so she should ensure everyone's safety. After Uncle Zhang's death, Sister Yang was not sent to the hospital in time, resulting in Uncle Zhang's death, so Sister Yang has to bear certain tort liability for Uncle Zhang.
2.For Uncle Zhang's death, Sister Yang should pay 600,000 yuan, including funeral expenses.
After receiving the legal **, Sister Yang was very shocked: "I clearly saved him at the time, why do you want me to pay, and it's 600,000!."”
After consulting with the relevant lawyers, Sister Yang felt that she had filed a reply to the accusations of Uncle Zhang's children.
And Sister Yang's reply is as follows:
1.According to the relevant laws and regulations of our country, unless Sister Yang has a major mistake or negligence that caused Uncle Zhang's death, there is no need for Sister Yang to bear the corresponding legal responsibility.
Obviously, there was no negligence or major mistake on the part of Sister Yang during the event.
2.Uncle Zhang had a seizure due to his own illness, and then died after the hospital rescue failed, so this responsibility is entirely on his own. Uncle Zhang should be aware that he has heart disease and can't do this kind of strenuous exercise, but he still lets himself dance and other activities, so Uncle Zhang himself is responsible.
3.Sister Yang immediately carried out rescue activities at the first moment of the incident, and not only performed artificial respiration on Uncle Zhang, but also found another doctor to rescue Uncle Zhang together.
Therefore, based on the above, it cannot be determined that Sister Yang should be responsible for Uncle Zhang's death.
And the court concluded after the trial:
According to the facts, Uncle Zhang did voluntarily participate in cultural and sports activities, and he also had a seizure because of his own illness, and then the hospital rescue was ineffective.
In this case, there is indeed no evidence to prove that the defendant Sister Yang was grossly negligent or intentional.
And as the organizer of the square dance, Sister Yang not only performed artificial respiration after he fell into a coma, but also found a doctor to help him, and also dialed 120, she has fulfilled her obligations, so she should not bear the corresponding tort liability for Uncle Zhang's death.
Although square dancing is a dangerous cultural and sports activity for Uncle Zhang, Uncle Zhang participates voluntarily, so he should bear the corresponding risks.
Therefore, the plaintiff's family's claim was unreasonable, and the court did not support the relevant claim.
In the end, the law made a relevant judgment and rejected the request of Uncle Zhang's children, and Sister Yang did not have to pay any compensation.
Relevant legal knowledge is popularized].
According to the relevant laws and regulations of China, if the actor infringes on the civil rights and interests of others due to fault and causes damage, he shall bear tort liability, and if he cannot prove that he is not wrong, then according to the principle of presumption of fault, the actor still has to bear the corresponding tort liability.
If the infringement endangers the personal and property safety of others, then the infringed party has the right to request the infringer to bear tort liabilities such as stopping the infringement, removing obstacles, and eliminating dangers.
Generally speaking, there are a few special cases in which the no-fault principle applies.
According to the relevant provisions of laws and regulations, it can be known that no-fault originality is also known as the principle of no-fault liability, which means that if the damage caused to others without fault is caused, the person related to the cause of the damage shall bear the civil liability principle in accordance with the law.
In normal times, there are the following situations:1If other people are damaged due to environmental pollution, then the person who pollutes the environment must bear the responsibility of no fault. Because if he hadn't polluted the environment in the first place, then no one would have been harmed by it.
For example, if someone sprinkles a large amount of intoxicating drugs into the river in order to catch fish in the river, causing the person who swims in the river to inhale the intoxicating drugs and drown in the river, then it is obvious that the person who drugged the river should bear the corresponding legal responsibility.
3.If the animal is raised and causes damage to a person, the animal keeper or manager shall bear no fault liability. Because the breeder has a duty of care for the pet, for example, the dog walker does not tie the leash, causing others to be bitten by the dog, so the pet owner must bear the relevant responsibility.
The same is true for zoos, which should pay compensation if the animal injures a person, unless the zoo can prove that it has fulfilled its obligations.
In other words, if the zoo has put up a sign not to approach the animals, and there are staff members to stop it, but there are still visitors who provoke the animals, so the animals take the initiative to attack the visitors, then this is not the responsibility of the zoo.
4.Where a person who lacks or has limited capacity for civil conduct causes harm to others, the guardian shall bear no-fault liability.
Because the expression of intent of persons without civil capacity and persons with limited civil capacity is limited, they cannot distinguish their own behavior, so that is, the guardian has not fulfilled his guardianship responsibility, and the guardian needs to bear no-fault liability.
So what are the persons who lack civil capacity and those who have limited civil capacity?
Generally speaking, children under the age of eight or adults who are completely incapable of distinguishing their own actions are incapacitated for civil conduct.
According to the relevant laws and regulations, people who can know that this is their intention to express that they are not able to carry out any civil legal acts, so they need to be supervised by a guardian.
Persons with limited capacity for civil conduct refer to minors over the age of eight and under the age of eighteen, as well as those adults who cannot fully recognize their own behavior.
Their expressions of intent are legally relatively valid legal effects, but some can only be unilateral, so they can only be expressions of intent whose validity is to be determined, that is, they need to be confirmed by their guardians.
However, it should be noted that if he is a young man over the age of 16, if he uses his income as his main livelihood**, then he can be judged as a person with full capacity for civil conduct.
Then the relevant legal interpretation on guardianship is as follows.
The obligation of the guardian is to protect the legitimate rights and interests of the ward and the implementation of legal acts by the ward, because generally speaking, the ward cannot carry out relevant legal acts, so the guardian is required.
And there are many situations of guardians, such as intentional guardianship or testamentary guardianship.
Legal guardianship refers to a guardian arranged in accordance with the provisions of laws and regulations. Generally, parents, older siblings, grandfathers, grandparents, etc.
Intended guardianship is the guardian chosen by the ward himself, generally speaking, it means that those actors negotiate with their close relatives, other organizations or individuals who are willing to serve as guardians, and then if the ward has problems later, then these intended guardians will have to bear the corresponding responsibility.
However, it should be noted that guardianship is not the same as custody, that is, even if you have guardianship, it is not the same as having custody.
Because according to the relevant laws and regulations, custody refers to a personal right of parents to love and nurture their children.
Of course, this subject is not only parents, but also adoptive parents or grandparents, so custody is not only a right of parents, but also an obligation, which means that we must do our best to the child, and also take care of her in terms of life and diet.
Therefore, it should be that custody includes guardianship, that is to say, guardianship is actually a part of custody.