Lufa case [2024] 048
Image source network invasion and deletion)
Kindly sharing food is a common way for people to show kindness in social interactions. However, this kind of behavior that is common in daily life can be involved in legal disputes, causing people to think and controversy. Take a look at the example below.
Brief facts of the case
On January 16, 2022, ten-year-old Li went to the small dining table classroom to take classes, during which he distributed the spicy noodles brought at home to Xiao A, who was in class with him. After school, a student saw that "Xiao A took out a pack of spicy strips from the hole in the table, tore open the plastic packaging, held one with his mouth, and then tilted his head, slowly slid to the ground, and lay on the ground without moving", and immediately reported to the teacher in the classroom, and the teacher immediately dialed 120 first aid**. After being rescued by the hospital, Xiao A died on March 26, 2022. The medical certificate (inference) of the death of the resident of Xiao A stated that the cause of death was subarachnoid hemorrhage secondary to cerebral parenchymal hemorrhage. The inspection and testing report issued by the professional testing agency states that the spicy strips eaten by Xiao A meet the requirements of GB2760-2014 "National Food Safety Standard for the Use of Food Additives". The inspection report issued by the Institute of Forensic Science and Technology of the public security organ stated that no diazepam, phosphine, or dichlorvos were detected in the spicy strips eaten by Xiao A extracted from the scene. Xiao A's parents asserted that there was a causal relationship between Xiao A's act of eating spicy noodles and the consequences of his death, and demanded that Li, who shared the spicy noodles, and his parents bear tort liability.
Heard by the courts
After review, the court held that the focus of the dispute in this case was whether there was a legal causal relationship between Li's act of sharing spicy noodles and the death of Xiao A. First of all, the inspection by the public security organs proved that the spicy strips shared by Li to Xiao A were not detected with toxic ingredients. As a snack, spicy strips contain a variety of food additives, but they are food with no obvious safety hazards. Li's act of giving spicy strips to Xiao A was a sharing behavior between children, and there was no intentional purpose or behavior to harm Xiao A. Second, according to the interrogation records of the public security organs and the investigation of the scene**, there was no sign of biting the spicy strips in Xiao A's mouth, and there was no sufficient evidence to prove that Xiao A actually ate the spicy strips. Third, Xiao A's parents confirmed that Xiao A had no prior history of allergies, and Xiao A's Medical Certificate of Resident Death (Inference) and medical records both stated that the cause of death was subarachnoid hemorrhage secondary to cerebral parenchymal hemorrhage. Therefore, the evidence submitted by Xiao A's parents is not sufficient to prove that there is a causal relationship between the spicy strips and the death, and the causal relationship between the acts and the consequences cannot be determined solely on the basis of the temporal correlation between the spicy strips and the consequences of the death. In summary, there is no causal relationship between Li's act of kindly sharing the snacks he ate with Xiao A and the fact of Xiao A's death, the act is a good-faith sharing between children and will not cause the result of death, and Li has no intentional or negligent infringement of Xiao A, and is not at fault for Xiao A's death, so he does not need to bear tort damages liability in this case.
What the judge said
The assumption of tort liability is based on the principle of fault liability, with the exception of no-fault liability. Paragraph 1 of Article 1165 of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China stipulates that if an actor infringes upon the civil rights and interests of others due to his fault and causes damages, he shall bear tort liability. Fault liability means that the damage caused does not necessarily bear the liability for compensation, and it must be seen whether the actor is at fault, and there is responsibility for fault, and there is no responsibility for no fault. This case is a tort liability case arising from social interactions. In a dispute involving a tort involving the right to life, the most important thing is to evaluate whether the perpetrator was intentional or negligent. From the perspective of legal provisions and general life experience, if the actor does not intentionally or negligently infringe on others, he should not bear tort liability. The Civil Code encourages civil entities to actively carry out lawful and legitimate social interactions. If the act of sharing food itself is not harmful, and the rights and interests of others are harmed due to other factors, if the sharer is not at fault, and there is no evidence to prove the existence of a causal relationship between his act and the result of the damage, he shall not be liable for compensation in accordance with law. The basic value of the Civil Code is to encourage civil subjects to actively engage in social interactions, and if the behavior of children in this case sharing food without obvious safety hazards in good faith is characterized as an infringement, it undoubtedly restricts people's freedom of behavior and is inconsistent with the legislative purpose of the Civil Code. Friendliness is an important part of the core values of socialism, and in social interactions, food sharing behaviors without obvious safety hazards should not be found to be at fault, and the judgment that good-intentioned food sharing is not responsible is conducive to citizens carrying out legitimate social interactions, and conveying the positive energy of the rule of law of virtue and goodness through the affirmation and protection of well-meaning people.
Links to legal provisions
Paragraph 1 of Article 1165 of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of ChinaIt is stipulated that if the actor infringes on the civil rights and interests of others due to his fault and causes harm, he shall bear tort liability.
*: Zaozhuang Intermediate Court.