Follow me and I will share some interesting stories and experiences on a regular basis to exchange educational experiences together.
Recently, an incident in which a man accidentally touched the glass when he turned around on the supermarket escalator and caused the glass to crack has attracted widespread attention. The supermarket demanded 8,100 yuan in compensation from the man, but the man believed that the elevator was too fragile and of poor quality. Both sides insist on their own words, whether there is a problem with the quality of the elevator or man-made destruction, which remains to be solved.
According to what happened, when the man got off the elevator, his body accidentally touched the escalator glass, causing the glass to crack, or even crack the whole thing. It is worth noting that the man's strength is not great, but the escalator glass is unusually shaky. The man responded that he just went down the escalator normally, did not use his mobile phone or other behaviors, and just gently rubbed the handrail of the escalator, and such an accident happened, which made him incredible. The person in charge of the supermarket said that the third-party agency test determined that it was artificially damaged, and there would be no problem with the normal use of the escalator. Both sides have their own opinions on responsibility, and if they cannot solve the problem, they can only solve it through legal means.
From the current dialogue, it can be seen that both sides firmly believe that there is no problem with them, and the full responsibility is placed on the other side. However, even if the situation is resolved through legal means, the result may be verbal and written. First of all, is the certificate of conformity of the elevator valid?Is the certificate tested by a formal agency?Secondly, just a light touch can cause the glass to break, is there really no elevator quality problem?Even if the man is willing to take responsibility for compensation, it cannot be paid in full. In addition, as a service industry, if the supermarket injures customers due to broken glass, how can the supermarket compensate?Do you still want to ask customers for compensation?Does the supermarket have any problems of its own?For the man, it is indeed a bit unjust to be asked to compensate this amount, which proves the safety hazards of the supermarket.
In this incident, the elevator quality problem became the focus. The man thinks the elevator is too fragile and delicate, while the supermarket insists that their elevator has been tested and will not cause problems. As a public facility, elevators are related to people's safety, and such a controversy has raised concerns about the quality of elevators.
For the man, he just went down the escalator normally, and lightly touched the handrail of the escalator, but it caused the glass to break. Judging from his description, he did not exert excessive force or deliberately destroy the elevator, which makes one wonder if there is a problem with the quality of the elevator. If the quality of the elevator is really too fragile, then can it withstand the collisions and pressures of daily use?This has also raised concerns about the safety of escalators.
However, the supermarket side denied this. According to them, the escalator has been tested and qualified by a third-party agency, and there is no quality problem. The supermarket manager insisted that the escalator glass would not break under normal use, so they believed that it was the result of vandalism. Although the supermarket has come up with a test certificate as an argument, this does not completely rule out the possibility of elevator quality problems.
Both sides firmly believe that they are not responsible, making it almost impossible to resolve the issue through negotiation. In this case, legal avenues may be the only way out for both parties at present. However, even if it is resolved through legal proceedings, there are a range of issues to consider.
First of all, does the validity of the certificate have legal effect?If the certificate of conformity is tested and issued by a formal institution, then its authority and reliability cannot be questioned. Otherwise, the role of the certificate of conformity will be questioned. Secondly, if there is really a problem with the quality of the elevator, then just a slight collision will cause the glass to break, does this also represent a potential safety hazard of the elevator?Is the escalator glass more fragile than reasonable?If so, then does the supermarket have the responsibility to repair and improve the elevator to ensure the safety of customers?
Not only that, but as a service industry, if the supermarket injures a customer due to a broken glass of the escalator, should it take the initiative to bear the liability for compensation?Is there a disregard for customer safety on the part of the supermarket?These problems are not only related to the resolution of this incident, but also closely related to the quality of service and public safety of supermarkets.
Through the description and analysis of this incident, I deeply feel that there is still a lot of room for improvement in the service industry in terms of maintaining public safety and protecting consumer rights.
First of all, as a public facility, the quality and safety of escalators must be highly valued. It is not only necessary to have a test certificate, but also to ensure that the escalator can withstand the friction and collision of daily use to ensure the safety of customers.
Secondly, supermarkets, as a service industry, should take the initiative to take responsibility for customer safety. In this case, the supermarket overemphasized the existence of the certificate of conformity, but ignored the safety of customers, which is a lack of service attitude. Supermarkets should take consumer complaints and feedback seriously, and repair and improve elevators with potential safety hazards in a timely manner to ensure that the rights and interests of customers are not harmed.
Finally, while legal means can resolve disputes, there is also a need to focus more on fairness and equality. Especially in a similar incident, if there is a problem with the quality of the elevator, the law should give more protection and support to consumers to avoid unfair treatment of consumers because of difficulties in protecting their rights.
Overall, this incident is not just a simple claim dispute, but also reflects that there are still many problems that need to be resolved in the service industry in terms of consumer rights and public safety. It is hoped that in the future, there will be more measures and mechanisms to protect the rights and interests of consumers and improve the overall quality and level of the service industry. Only in this way can we enjoy a safer and more comfortable environment during the shopping process.
Your attention is my motivation, and your support is the direction we are heading. Follow me and you can see my latest articles, hear my unique insights and in-depth analysis on a variety of topics, and let's explore the ocean of knowledge together.