the other defendants did not even appear in court.

DavidCadogan.ca Forums » DavidCadogan.ca

the other defendants did not even appear in court.

(1 post)

Started 10 years ago by mlaqe387071

Tags:

mlaqe387071
Member

 Unable to prove not own a dog accident, he was sentenced to six tenants related compensation Upstairs fall a big yellow dog, the 76-year-old woman injured Ran. Since dog owners who do not know, Ran old woman upstairs 29 tenants to court. Court of First Instance that this was a domestic animal to cause damage cases because the victim can not testify Ran old woman who is a dog owner, ruling it lost. Ran Granny appeal to the Second City Court. The hospital held that the case was ostensibly keeping animals cause damage to the case, but in fact it is a case of falling objects, apply the burden of proof upside down. Yesterday, the hospital Final verdict: six households because there is no sufficient evidence to prove that the injury was not their own dog, joint compensation Ran Granny 6700 yuan of medical and other expenses. Granny injured by a brown dog heaven Last October 17, 0900, after Ran Granny located in Wanzhou District Xincheng Road vegetable market when suddenly heavy heaven,piumini moncler sito ufficiale, will she fainted on the spot hit the ground. Ran old woman woke up, she told the crowd, was upstairs dropping her injured dog. Subsequently, the well-intentioned people will Ran old woman to a nearby hospital for treatment by a medical diagnosis,moncler Outlet, Ran Granny for light brain injury, multiple soft tissue injuries. Later, due to the big yellow dog had fled the accident, the area police station and neighborhood committee staff despite multiple investigations, dog owners who still do not find out. In February, Ran Granny paper petition upstairs 29 households reported to Wanzhou District Court, claims for medical expenses, mental anguish fees 1.4 million yuan. Accused of 29 tenants that he is very unjust, almost all went to court to defend themselves. Because there are five residents and the big yellow dog fall not on the same side of the direction, Ran old woman finally gave up on this a few residents claim. Granny prosecution against the residents upstairs Wanzhou District Court held that, in accordance with Article 127 of the Civil Code stipulates that causes harm to the animals, the animal keeper or manager shall bear the liability. Ran old woman was injured by the big yellow dog, but dog owners who can not find, so there is no way to look for the dog owner accident compensation for medical expenses. Borne by the 24 residents is neither reasonable medical expenses, there is no corresponding legal support. In July this year, Wanzhou District court verdict against Ran Granny. Ran old woman refused to accept the judgment of first instance,http://www.bcm.co.jp, appeal to the Second City Court. When the second instance court, only seven residents to defend themselves, the other defendants did not even appear in court. Appear in court accused of households said they had a dog in unison, some of the tenants even shot out of its own anti-theft network security photos to testify, the judge admissibility of these households comments. Falls yellow dog is not merely a dog Ran Granny's attorney, Chongqing Jin Yang Tang Yuehong lawyer law firm, she said the dog upstairs falling down is no longer a pure sense of the dog, but should be regarded as high-altitude fall of "things." Falling objects tort biggest feature is unable to identify the real perpetrator,http://bbs.uoosong.com/forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=5674126, according to relevant laws, if no responsible person shall use all the buildings or bear civil liability. Tang Yuehong lawyers believe that the rules of evidence Civil Procedure Law Article fourth paragraph: buildings or other facilities as well as an object placed on the building, pedants collapses, falling, falling damage caused by infringement proceedings, by the owner or management who bear the burden of proof on its no-fault, that is, we often say "burden of proof" - if you can not exclude the possibility that they have to leave the dog, it should bear the liability. When the second instance court, Tang Yuehong lawyers that fall between the yellow dog is on the upstairs tenants have a great suspicion of the accident - in addition to the first floor and the security of the live outdoor security net, the other six households did not install anti-theft network, do not set rails and other protective measures. Since the six households there is insufficient evidence that Granny is not home injured dog,http://reposit.sun.ac.jp, the court's final judgment of their joint compensation Ran Granny 6700 yuan for medical expenses. Reporter Tang Zhongming Judges say Animals seem to cause damage Actually falling objects wounding The case of second instance the judge said to the floor fall (throwing) was an extremely dangerous behavior,moncler pas cher,http://store.shopping.yahoo.co.jp/ebest-dvd/0000000712584.html, such behavior would be life, health and property safety of pedestrians downstairs threat that such acts should be subject to social and moral condemnation,http://www.montal.com.br, but also legal prohibited, if causing injury to others, it should bear the liability. Although the case of animals fall causing injuries,http://store.shopping.yahoo.co.jp/gion/mp-116bk.html, but the case should be falling objects wounding rather than farm animals causing damage, injured in the move shows that he was in the downstairs injured, according to the "Supreme People's Court on civil allocation of certain provisions of the burden of proof of evidence for litigation, "Article, will exclude yourself fall (throwing) behavior was more appropriate to the upstairs tenants - if they can not rule out the household, must bear the burden of proof can not be the responsibility of the building There are six residents had no evidence to rule out suspects,http://www.istdzone.com/aussie/bbs_exif/spam-uzai-hontouni-shine-hontouni-shine-1000okukai-shine-shine.cgi, and ultimately to bear the liability. related news Falling objects wounding There are different all over the judgment In recent years,nike air max 90, the country falling objects when aerial assault has occurred, can not be determined at the time of the offender,piumini moncler, not the same all over the verdict. 1, Jinan cutting board case In 2001, Jinan City,http://www.zencart-pro.com, Meng Granny talking with neighbors in the corridor before their own entrance, upstairs fall was hit on the head of a cutting board died. the second floor above the 15 residents of the building to court. Court of First Instance that the owner can not be determined cutting board, the court rejected the plaintiff. Plaintiff appeals court of second instance is still ruling rejected. After the complaint, Shandong Province Higher People's Court arraignment, still rejected by a retrial on appeal, upheld the court ruling. 2, Chongqing ashtray case May 10, 2000, when the chairman of a company Yuzhong home, an ashtray smashing in his head, the spot coma, after identified as disabled. The victim and two buildings above developer layer 24 resident court. Court of First Instance dismissed the plaintiff's request for the developer, but according to the principle of presumption of fault, in the judgment of 24 residents 22 shared liability of 16 million yuan. Court of second instance upheld the conviction. 

Posted 10 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.