Original title: 11 year old boy riding a bike share killed a case: entanglement, passing the life of the boy's responsibility is a bit cold-blooded?
September 15th morning, the 11 year old boy riding a bicycle sharing death case in Shanghai public hearing, the original defendant's views and attitudes on both sides of the table officially put on the table, there are many conflicts. For these key issues, we continue to invite East China University of politics and law, China Construction Research Center, teacher Sun Yuhua, to help us interpret.
Shared bike locks are of good quality, so bicycle companies are not responsible. For this argument, Sun Yuhua think there is a problem, his reason is: locks into circulation, in line with product quality standards, does not mean that there is no defect after circulation. The operator or the sale of car bike sharing is not locked, but the ride service provider. It must ensure the safety of service to meet the statutory requirements, the law on road traffic safety regulations for the implementation of article seventy-second expressly prohibited under the age of twelve children riding a bicycle at present, which is set on duty cycling operators sharing child safety guarantee, this obligation can be introduced by standard safe use of bicycle, bicycle is not generally exist children may be unlocked. This is like wine liquor can not be sold to minors. Bicycle companies must maintain constant maintenance when they are locked into the car to ensure that the locks are consistent with the product quality standards. If most of the car locks after repeated use of wear and tear, it is easy to open the child, the car locks will not reach the product quality standards. At the same time, bicycle companies fail to fulfill their safety obligations under the road traffic safety law, and they should be liable for additional damages.
The reason that the shared bicycle company did not fulfill the security responsibility, in fact, there is another law -- from the perspective of juvenile law sixth protection regulations: the protection of minors, state organs, armed forces, political parties, social organizations, enterprises and institutions and organizations at the grassroots level in urban and rural areas, guardians of minors and other adult citizens of the common responsibility. This provision establishes the responsibility for the protection of minors in enterprises. Bicycle companies may not be able to generally exclude the use of children under the age of twelve on the hardware and shall be liable for failing to comply with the law. Sun believes that the relevant enterprises should face up to this problem, that is to say, the protection of minors is not only the guardian's responsibility, the whole society is responsible.
There is also a focus in this case, the bicycle company believes that the boy is through unauthorized means unauthorized unlock, violated the legitimate property of the company, belonging to infringement. In this regard, sun teachers believe that minors as victims, their abnormal open behavior is a fault, but can not be exempt from the responsibility of bicycle companies. The twenty-sixth law of tort stipulates that the infringer is also at fault for the occurrence of the damage, and the liability of the infringer can be alleviated. In accordance with this article, even if the victim in the case of fault, but the bicycle company failed to fulfill its security obligations, this is also a fault, its responsibility can be reduced, but can not be exempted.
Mr. Sun believes that when the tragedy occurred, shirk responsibility generally become the norm, 11 year old boy riding a bicycle sharing killed in a traffic accident case, gone is the young life, living adults should reflect on the question of where, what kind of responsibility, but should not focus on, or dwell on past life what is the fault.