Northeast old man was taken away brother hit fracture gas, hit fly to litigationtda7294

The old man in Northeast China was hit by a broken arm and broke into a lawsuit. Now, taking takeout is the most common thing. From time to time through high streets and back lanes, take little brother figure. But if one is not careful go by bike injured people, who counted this responsibility? Unfortunately, it caused the more than 50 year old northeast man Lao Li to be touched. Is he mad hit go by playing the "fly" to fight the Northeast Li fracture, Ningbo in May this year to travel to Ninghai, walking on the sidewalk, but go by the passing car battery knocked utterly routed. Lao Li was so old that he could not move on the ground. Companion rushed him to the nearby hospital, the result of Lao Li was diagnosed with sternal fracture, spend a total of 800 yuan medical expenses. After discharge, Lao Li because of something at home, did not have time to ask for compensation, rushed back to the northeast. After turning back to deal with this matter, 800 yuan medical expenses, the two sides have failed to negotiate success. For this tone, Lao Li from the northeast to play the "fly" to Ninghai, and to go by and the Soybean Milk shop on the court, asking them to compensation for medical expenses, lost income losses totaling nearly million. Finally, we step back and go by the store have lost money recently, hearing the case. Soybean Milk shop owner took out a contract, said it had the take away business contracting to go by, go by delivery not a job behavior is his personal behavior, so Soybean Milk shop do not have to take responsibility. Lao li felt that his brother was wearing his takeaway is Soybean Milk shop work clothes, driving is also printed with logo Soybean Milk store battery car, go by delivery is in fulfillment of duties, the injured person’s tort should be borne by the store, not only on the basis of a contract exemption the Soybean Milk store responsibility. In the trial, the judge also learned that Lee in order to protect their rights from the northeast to Ninghai by plane, and the local rental in Ninghai, the cost has been close to the amount of rights. Although they have no responsibility, but also hope that the old shop owner Soybean Milk Lee early withdrawal, so that he can get back to the room in the traffic police brigade buckle car battery. In considering to listen to the three side of the argument, the judge, and actively organize the three party mediation, finally we make a step, reached a compensation scheme: go by compensation Lee 5000 yuan, Soybean Milk shop owner is also a 1000 yuan, the case can be solved smoothly. What is the responsibility of this kind of lawsuit? What does the judge say? If the mediation is unsuccessful, who will be responsible for this? The judge said that this is mainly to see whether the behavior to go by the store’s job behavior. If you go by is the store staff, the store must be a liability in the delivery way of the injured person’s behavior, but sellers only in intentional or gross negligence when they need to take responsibility. But if you go by not store employees, as in the case Soybean Milk shop owner stated contract relationship is true, then the Soybean Milk shop is no need to take corresponding responsibility.

东北老汉被外卖哥撞骨折 气得打“飞的”来打官司现如今,叫外卖已经是最平常不过的事情。大街小巷,也时不时穿梭着外卖小哥的身影。但要是一个不小心外卖小哥骑车撞伤了人,这责任算谁的?不巧,这事就让50多岁的东北人老李给碰上了。被外卖小哥撞骨折他气得打“飞的”来打官司东北人老李,今年5月宁波来宁海旅游,走在人行道上,却被外卖小哥飞驰而过的电瓶车撞得人仰马翻。老李一把年纪了,倒在地上动弹不得。同伴赶紧把他送到了附近的医院,结果老李被诊断为胸骨骨折,共花去医疗费800余元。出院后,老李因为家中有事,没来得及索要赔偿就赶回了东北。等回过头再来处理这事,800元的医疗费双方一直未能协商成功。为争这口气,老李又从东北打“飞的”来到宁海,并把外卖小哥和其所在的豆浆店都告上了法院,要求他们赔偿医疗费、误工费等损失共计近万元。最后大家各退一步外卖小哥和店家都赔了钱近日,此案开庭。豆浆店老板拿出了一份承包合同,声明其已经把外卖业务承包给了外卖小哥,外卖小哥送外卖不是职务行为,是其个人行为,所以豆浆店不用承担责任。老李觉得,撞伤自己的外卖小哥当时穿的是豆浆店的工作服,驾驶的也是印制着豆浆店标识的电瓶车,外卖小哥送外卖就是在履行职务行为,其撞伤人的侵权行为就应该由其所在的店承担,不能仅凭一张承包合同就免除了豆浆店的责任。庭审中,承办法官还得知,老李为了维权从东北坐飞机到宁海,并且租住在宁海本地,其开销已经接近了维权金额。虽然说自己没有责任,但豆浆店老板也希望老李能早日撤诉,这样,他扣在交警大队的电瓶车可以拿回继续送餐。在听了三方的说法后,综合考虑,承办法官积极组织三方调解,最终大家各让一步,达成了赔偿方案:外卖小哥赔偿了李某5000元,豆浆店老板也出了1000元,该案得以顺利的解决。这类官司责任如何分听听法官怎么说假设调解不成功,这责任到底归谁呢?承办法官介绍说,这主要要看外卖小哥的行为是否为其店家的职务行为。如果外卖小哥是店家的员工,那店家必须为其在送外卖途中撞伤人的行为承担责任,而外卖员只有在故意或者存在重大过失时才需要承担责任。但如果外卖小哥不是店家的员工,就像本案中豆浆店老板陈述的承包关系是真实的,那么豆浆店是无需承担相应责任的。相关的主题文章:

« »

Comments closed.