In Xicheng, Beijing, the woman led the dog to walk on the street, and when a 70-year-old aunt passed by, she suddenly fell to the ground with a scream, and then pulled the woman to prevent the woman from leaving, saying that she was frightened by the woman's dog and asked the woman to compensate. The woman was stunned: "What's the matter with me!."(Beijing**, etc.).
It is reported that Ms. Li raised a Chow Chow with a height of about 40 centimeters and applied for a dog license in Daxing District.
On the day of the incident, Ms. Li was walking on the street of Xicheng District with her dog, and an aunt in her 70s suddenly fell and injured herself when she passed by.
Subsequently, the aunt pulled Ms. Li to prevent Ms. Li from leaving, and was frightened by the dog and demanded compensation from Ms. Li.
Ms. Li was stunned, thinking that her dog did not touch the aunt, and the aunt fell down by herself, and it had nothing to do with her.
The two sides argued, so the aunt called the police and went to the hospital on her own.
The hospital diagnosed the aunt with a fracture of the distal radius of the right ulna, and the aunt then received ** in the hospital, and after being discharged from the hospital, she sued Ms. Li in court.
In court, the aunt still insisted that she was frightened by Ms. Li's dog and fell down.
Article 67, paragraph 1 of the Civil Procedure Law stipulates that the parties have the responsibility to provide evidence for their claims.
Article 90 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on the Application of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China stipulates that a party shall provide evidence to prove the facts on which its own claims are based or on which it refutes the claims of the other party, unless otherwise provided by law. Where a party fails to provide evidence or the evidence is insufficient to prove its factual assertion before a judgment is rendered, the party who bears the burden of proof shall bear the adverse consequences.
In the face of the aunt's complaint, Ms. Li not only thought that she had a certificate for the dog, and walked the dog on a leash without touching the aunt, but also believed that the aunt said that she was scared by her dog and fell down, without any evidence!
How did the court decide?Should Ms. Li be held responsible?
1. First of all, there are four types of infringement.
1. Whether there is any wrongdoing;Clause.
2. Whether there is a fact of damage;Clause.
3. Whether the perpetrator is subjectively at fault;Clause.
4. There is a causal relationship between the fact of harm and the wrongful conduct of the perpetrator.
This case is a tort case of damage to raising animals. Different from general tort liability, general tort liability applies to fault liability, that is, only liability is due to fault.
In the case of tort of damage caused by raising animals, the principle of no-fault liability applies. Liability is not possible only if there is evidence that the damage was intentionally caused by the victim.
Article 1245 of the Civil Code stipulates that if an animal is raised and causes damage to others, the animal keeper or manager shall bear tort liability;However, if it can be proved that the damage was caused intentionally or by gross negligence on the part of the infringed party, the liability may be waived or mitigated.
Specifically, in this case, the court found that Ms. Li's dog was only a large dog, and according to the regulations of the area where the incident occurred, fierce dogs and large dogs were not allowed, and the elderly, the disabled, pregnant women and children should be avoided when leaving the house with the dog.
Therefore, Ms. Li herself also had obvious violations and obvious faults. In this case, the key to whether Ms. Li should be held liable or not depends on whether there is a causal relationship between Ms. Li's wrongdoing and her aunt's injury.
2. On the one hand, the so-called causal relationship is actually the relationship between causing and being caused.
Although Ms. Li's dog did not come into contact with the aunt, for ordinary people, unfamiliar dogs will have fear when they enter their own safety boundaries.
Unlike criminal cases, the evidence is conclusive and the facts are sufficient. According to article 108 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on the Application of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, if the people's court is convinced that the existence of the facts to be proved is highly probable after reviewing the evidence provided by the party who bears the burden of proof, it shall determine that the facts exist.
That is, in short, the standard of proof of civil evidence is sufficient to reach a high degree of probability.
Specific to this case, the aunt suddenly saw a large dog, based on the fear of falling down, it is highly likely.
In this case, as long as the aunt completes the basic burden of proof, the burden of proof is transferred to Ms. Li, and if Ms. Li cannot provide evidence to prove that the aunt fell for other reasons, she needs to bear the burden of insufficient proof.
And it is precisely based on the above that the aunt said that she was intimidated by Ms. Li's dog, and Ms. Li wanted to prove the opposite, and the court thought that Ms. Li should be held responsible after the trial, and after verifying the various losses of the aunt, the court ruled that Ms. Li should compensate the aunt 750,000 yuan.
3. Finally, this case has a strong warning significance. Once again, remind the majority of dog lovers that they must raise dogs in a civilized manner!Get away from the crowds!Avoid harming others and yourself!
What do you think about this?Welcome to leave a message in the comment area and exchange your views with everyone!
Follow @安律語.
Look at the various states of life in the case, and find a way to break the situation in the law!