<br>After a director at the restaurant, the LV (famous French luxury brand Louis? Vuitton) bag left lying in the chair, the staff temporarily to custody, he was found unexpectedly been someone else impersonator. The restaurant is not liable believe was the director of court. Yesterday, the East's Court Restaurant assume custodial responsibility, the director compensation 4000 yuan.<br> <br>Direct losses 47,886 yuan?<br> <br>For the loss of procedure, the parties are not greatly different. Director in the trial, said there is cash,doudoune moncler pas cher,http://www.freegraphicland.com, clothes, glasses,http://aws.keicode.com/aws/ses-dev-tool-scripts.php,louboutin femme, dozens of bank cards and consumer cards, wallets, a plurality of U disk, memory cards, bracelets, prepaid card and a large number of film and television shooting footage and other items inside the package, Direct losses 47,http://www.pheopara.com,886 yuan. Because the loss of material related to the breach of the plaintiff and the number of customers, indirect immeasurable loss.<br> <br>The restaurant side believes after leaving the restaurant more than one hour before I came back to receive the property, there is no fault in itself. And when the waiter handed the bag impersonator who verified the color package and other features. Jiang Xinxin is no evidence that the value of the package they are lost, it can not prove its genuine article real presence within the package and items. Restaurant as unpaid custodian, no obligation to open the package to verify the situation, and within a reasonable range have done to the duty of care, and therefore is not liable.<br> <br>The court finds that both sides are wrong<br> <br>The court held that the plaintiff will lose the briefcase at the restaurant after restaurant staff accused of Lost, should safekeeping. But in others falsely claimed the package, failed to fulfill the corresponding duty of care of a good administrator, the identity of the impersonator, Lost verify the contents of the article, its gross negligence is the direct cause of the plaintiff property damage. But the plaintiff did not fulfill the corresponding duty of care on the matter are also corresponding fault occurs.<br> <br>For package goods, the plaintiff presented proof of purchase can not prove that the relevant circumstances package goods, so the loss for inner plaintiff package goods, the amount of compensation to be determined by the court as appropriate. Court final judgment restaurants Leader Jiang Xinxin loss compensation for the loss of 4000 yuan.<br> <br>After the verdict, Jiang Xinxin expressed verdict restaurant liable to be recognized, "the amount of compensation would not be able to care about the loss of video is not easy to rumor, I have lost the money of others." The restaurant's agent said it would back to communicate with the person in charge. Morning News chief reporter Wang Bin<br> <br>■ News survey<br> <br>Users no longer worry about the restaurant in the future tube was missing<br> <br>For this verdict, the reporter to consult a number of restaurants,http://joomla.templaza.net/titania/index.php?option=com_community&view=profile&userid=23421, the restaurant's mixed reaction.<br> <br>A large-scale restaurant, said the restaurant generally has a set of more stringent procedures, custody, assist guests claim lost items, such as allowing guests say some items inside the package characteristics, in the case of the presence of the person responsible for the store to open the package check to Anti someone impersonator, if guests do not agree with the police for help to solve, and therefore never had a similar dispute, "because of improper storage compensation for the loss of the guests, it should be."<br> <br>Reporters had twice lost in the article restaurant experience,http://jrecin.jst.go.jp, claimed process is very simple, find the front desk to explain their left behind after what items, the waiter immediately took to the reporters. One of which is at a fast-food restaurant, the glass fell on the table, when the reporter returned to find the front desk staff said did not find the cup, and then found that the table has been cleaned, cups sauce pot was placed next to the service personnel did not care . Such SMEs restaurant staff said the store did not specify how to handle items left behind, "I never thought to help guests keep things had to be considered lost his." The staff said,scarpe hogan outlet, it seems that in the future the need to strengthen this area management.<br> <br>However, there are some restaurant owners said that while they are willing to take good care of customer property, but afraid of experiencing "Pengci" in. If a lawless falsely in the restaurant lost property, or loss of 100 yuan, but claiming lost 10,000 yuan, if not provide sufficient evidence to refute,doudoune moncler pas cher,http://tuonela.s138.xrea.com/lightbbs/light.cgi?res=6075, is not it also have to be forced to compensate ah? "If that's the case, we would rather lose customers was pretending not to. Kindly helped custody, it inadvertently while eating a lawsuit, really worth."<br> <br>When a reporter referred to "ignore the customer's loss was likely to have responsibility," the restaurant owner said: "I said, did not see, who can prove your bag beside me here?"<br> <br>Many users also believe that the case of the decision may have some negative effects, may be somewhat similar to the "Peng Yu case" are well-intentioned, but had sentenced to compensation. "After really worry about their own lost something, restaurant insisted that did not see before. At the expense of those of us ordinary people ah!" There are friends that the restaurant should not be one hundred percent accurate demanding audit obligation, or risk the restaurant to pick up the package also too big.<br> <br>Morning News chief reporter Wang Bin<br> <br>■ lawyers say<br> <br>Whether deliberately lost property should bear legal responsibility<br> <br>Beijing lawyer Li Hao Sheng Hongxing expressed, according to the relevant provisions of the "Property Law" Article 111, the restaurant in front of the lost property to the relevant authority should keep lost property. The restaurant after the discovery of lost property, intentional or whether it is discarded bear the corresponding legal responsibility. In addition,http://ryuzanji.eplus2.jp, if you choose directly to the restaurant owner, shall examine all the relevant information with the relevant information package owner are the same, there is no corresponding information should leave the restaurant owner's identity card and contact information, so impersonator after restaurant innocent bear responsibility for the situation.<br> <br>"In the present case, if the court during the investigation confirmed that the location and pick up packages in the same location for lost ground,http://www.mt-plan.com/index.php?option=com_contact&Itemid=3, or can be confirmed in the restaurant found out during the custody case after packet control, the responsibility for which can be found restaurants exist. On the contrary, If you pick up the package and lost places in different locations,piumini moncler, package goods taken away other customers might then there is the restaurant should basically be exempted from liability. "Li Hongxing lawyer said. He suggested that the restaurant most appropriate approach is to inform the police the first time after the discovery of lost property and lost property handed over to police custody, the police accepted site investigation. As long as the police can not determine the restaurant staff theft package of financial behavior, the existence of the financial package have nothing to do with the restaurant, no need to be responsible.<br> <br>Morning News reporter Xun Mi<br> <br> Share: welcome to comment I want to comment<br> Microblogging Recommended | today's hot microblogging (edit: SN034)<br>
DavidCadogan.ca Forums » DavidCadogan.ca
no need to be responsible.
(1 post)-
Posted 10 years ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.