Original title: A man was tripped and injured by a stray cat and the feeder paid NT$240,000. Who is more responsible?
Chengdu Commercial Daily-Red Star News special commentator Yang Chen
Is the badminton hall more responsible, or the stray cat feeders?
When Wu, a man, and his colleagues were playing in the badminton hall, they stepped on the stomach of a stray cat and fell, resulting in a tenth-level disability. Wu sued the badminton hall company and Xiao, the stray cat feeder, to court. The first instance verdict ordered the defendant Xiao to compensate the plaintiff RMB 240,198.20; the company where the defendant’s badminton hall is located shall assume supplementary compensation liability for the portion that the defendant Xiao cannot compensate. After the company where the defendant’s badminton hall is located assumes supplementary liability, it can recover compensation from the defendant Xiao. Recently, the case has sparked heated discussions online.
Some people think that this sentence is unreasonable. Wu is usually responsible for his injuries while playing badminton. Even if it is related to the stray cat at his feet, he cannot just look for someone to take advantage of. Although Xiao is a feeder of stray cats, he is not the real owner of the animal and feeds it out of good intentions.
Legally speaking, if Wu was injured while playing badminton and stepped on a stray cat, it would not be considered unlucky. The Civil Code stipulates that if the raised animals cause harm to others, the animal breeder or manager shall bear tort liability; if the animal breeder or manager violates the management regulations and fails to take safety measures for the animals and causes damage to others, the animal breeder or manager shall bear tort liability.
For Wu, who was injured while playing basketball, if he finds the owner of the animal, he will also find the “bell tieer” for his economic losses. The question is, is the person who feeds stray cats considered the animal’s breeder or manager? In judicial practice, it is generally believed that an animal keeper refers to the owner of an animal, that is, a person who has the right to possess, use, benefit from, and dispose of an animal; an animal manager refers to the person who actually controls and disciplines the animal. If feeding is only done occasionally, no specific relationship is formed between the feeder and the ownerless stray animals, and the feeder cannot control and discipline the animals. It is biased to require the feeder to bear legal responsibility.
Judging from the circumstances of this case, although Xiao is not the owner of the stray cat, his regular feeding has established a close relationship with the stray cat. “Xiao’s colleagues testified that Xiao not only regularly fed stray cats at the door of the toilet, but also took the cats to bathe and see a doctor.” This further proved that Xiao had an actual breeding relationship with the stray cats, and Xiao should also be responsible for Stray cats that are often fed should be restrained to prevent them from walking around randomly and affecting the safety of people in the badminton hall. From this perspective, the court finally determined that Xiao and the stray cats constituted a breeding relationship, and that they were legally responsible for Wu’s injuries.
However, there may still be room for discussion on the specific compensation. As the court ruled, the relevant company, as the operator of the badminton hall, has a safety guarantee obligation for the venue it operates. “Due to its neglect of management and failure to fulfill its safety guarantee obligations, the plaintiff stepped on someone in the sports venue while playing badminton. The cat was injured”, so he should also be liable for compensation. So, does the badminton hall have a greater proportion of responsibility, or is the responsibility of the stray cat feeder mainly? There is a discrepancy between some netizens’ perceptions and the court’s judgment.
After all, consumers spend money to play sports in badminton halls, and the venues should assume safety guarantee obligations and promptly eliminate various factors that may be unsafe for consumers, including removing stray cats from the venue in a timely manner. Previously, similar case rulings by some local courts also clarified the liability requirements for entities such as communities that have safety obligations. As a frequent feeder of stray cats, although there is a breeding relationship with the animals, to be honest, he is not an animal owner in the true sense. It is neither possible nor unreasonable to require him to absolutely control stray animals. In terms of the proportion of compensation, the badminton hall should bear more responsibility, which may better reflect the rationality of the judgment.
There are risks in feeding animals, but those who care for animals should not be harshly criticized. The accident of being tripped by a stray cat is a situation that no one wants to see. Feeders and venue operators should reasonably bear legal responsibilities in accordance with the law. This is also a lesson worth alerting the public.
2024-03-20 02:50:30
#man #tripped #injured #stray #cat #feeder #paid #NT240000 #responsible #Peoples #Livelihood #China #Engineering #Network
