The courier was dissatisfied with being complained of revenge on wounded


The courier was dissatisfied with being complained of revenge on wounded

The courier did not deliver but showed that it had been signed. Ms. Wang was retaliated by the courier after she complained and was injured by a stone. Ms. Wang sued the courier Wang and the Shentong Express Service Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Shentong Express) to the court and asked the two defendants to publicly apologize and claim more than RMB 770,000. The courier who initiated the social concern retaliated against the customer case. On May 22, the case was heard in the People's Court of Chaoyang District, Beijing.

The courier was dissatisfied with being complained of revenge on wounded

After the complaint, the courier struck a stone Recipients

On June 11, 2017, the plaintiff, Ms. Wang, purchased goods through Taobao. The logistics showed that the carrier was STO and Wang was a member. On June 15th, Ms. Wang discovered that the logistics turntable showed “have been signed and the signer was the collection point of the family himself”. She herself did not set up a collection point and did not sign for delivery. To this end, Ms. Wang made complaints through logistics customer service.

In response to this, Wang argued that because the express company had the requirement for express delivery and signing, he had repeatedly called Ms. Wang and sent a text message when she sent the express delivery. "I said at the time that I would send her in the past and she would sign for her first, but after 20 minutes she received a complaint." Wang said that after about a week, Ms. Wang started complaining again and then they abused each other and attacked each other in the SMS exchange. In court, Wang showed the contents of the messages he kept on his mobile phone.

For the reason why he took home a stone against Ms. Wang, Wang said that he intended to reconcile with Ms. Wang and wanted her to revoke the complaint. However, there was a dispute. Stones are used for self-defense and are usually on the car.

Ms. Wang said that is not the case. Wang, in the name of delivering the courier, lured the roommate with whom she co-habited to open the door, then forced her door to her bedroom and asked her to come out. When she came out, she said she wanted to call the police. When she turned to go to bed to take her cell phone, Wang suddenly threw herself on the bed and hurled it with stones. Until roommates alarmed, Wang fled.

Miss Wang was diagnosed with scalp laceration, hematoma of the scalp, head trauma, multiple soft tissue injuries in the left forearm, left wrist, left hand, and upper abdomen after being taken to the hospital; neurological response after brain trauma . Acting attorney showed the injured woman in courtFilm, and blood on the spot. In response, Wang accused the defendant and said, “The plaintiff’s roommate once told us that the plaintiff had splashed cherry juice at home into the sheets and faked blood.” Ms. Wang said that if necessary, she would ask the relevant witnesses to appear in court to prove her case.

Ms. Wang said that after her mental trauma, she visited Beijing Tiantan Hospital and Beijing Huilongguan Hospital and was diagnosed with major depression, sleep disorders, and anxiety disorders. The defendant Wang believes that the plaintiff visited multiple hospitals and was suspected of overtreatment. After the injury, he was constantly interviewed by the media and made microblogging to gain sympathy. This is not a manifestation of depression.

The economic loss of RMB 500,000 was the focus of the dispute in the case

One of the plaintiff’s claims for damages caused one of the RMB 500,000 claims for economic losses to be controversial .

Ms. Wang said that she was preparing a film before her injury. She was a producer and she had injected 500,000 yuan in funding. Directors and screenwriters have been finalized, and she has prepared a case for SARFT. As soon as the filming takes place, the film will be stopped because of the injury and the capital injection will be cancelled, causing major economic losses. The plaintiff's attorney believes that Ms. Wang is a vested interest in this film. Because of her injuries, she cannot take pictures and cause property damage and should be compensated.

The two defendants were skeptical about the authenticity of the film. Shen Tong’s attorney stated that if the film was actually taken, according to the shooting procedure, the film should be shot before the plaintiff was injured. Obviously it was not because the injury delayed the shooting time.

Does STO undertake joint and several liability?

Stoton Express, as one of the defendants in this case, is jointly and severally liable for the dispute in this case.

The plaintiff's attorney believes that STO should at least fulfill three obligations: to protect the safety of users; to properly handle user complaints; to ensure that employees have the knowledge of safe production and ensure that express delivery is secure. However, in this case, STO Express obviously did not do it.

“The plaintiff Ms. Wang and Shentong Express formed a contractual relationship on the post and did not receive the express delivery. Shentong Express was sure to bear the responsibility. The courier, Wang, obtained the address information of Ms. Wang using the convenience of her work. Retaliation, which is the infringement of the duty behavior, from the breach of contract to the infringement, Shen Tongkuo needs to bear joint and several liability.”The division said.

Stoton Express lawyers argued that: “The courier Wang Miao’s assault on Ms. Wang is not the company’s intent. It is his personal behavior. The company requires employees to properly handle complaints during training and whether they are jointly and severally liable. Whether it is a job behavior or not, follow the court's decision."

In addition, Shentong Express lawyer also believes that Wang, as the courier of STO, is a terminal part of the express delivery, it is necessary to know the customer The company's home address, mobile phone number, and other private information, the company did not intentionally leaked to third parties, can not be determined as intentional disclosure of customer information.

The case was not judged in court. (Jie Xiaoli, Justice Network)