Two boys suffocated in the car, who is responsible? Car owner or parent?

The suffocation of the two boys in the car is indeed distressing, and this incident is completely because the parents of the two children did not fulfill their responsibility to take care of the children, and the owner of the car is not at fault.

Parents ignore the safety of their children and neglect their guardianship. Two children are 5 years old and the other is 4 years old, and the parents of the two families can let their children go out to play by themselves with complete confidence, and their hearts are too big. This behavior of parents has caused a great safety hazard, and even without this incident, it is very dangerous for two children to go out to play.

As the guardian of the child, the parent should fulfill the duty of guardianship, and the occurrence of such a thing to the two children is completely caused by the negligence of the parents.

There is no problem with the behavior of the car owner, and he is also a victim. Although the owner did not lock the car, the owner's car was parked in his own courtyard and placed in his own car, so it was wrong not to lock it. This incident was just an accident, and the owner of the car did not expect that his failure to lock the car could cause such a result, and not locking the car was not an act that was harmful to others.

I really can't see any fault on the part of the car owner in this incident, but the owner of the car is also a victim in this incident, and the two children died in their own cars, which probably can't be wanted, and the car owner's psychology will also suffer.

The parents put all the blame on the car owner and felt sorry for the two children who died. The two little lives left like this, and anyone who sees it will feel sorry and feel sorry for their parents. But after reading the follow-up attitude of the parents, I really feel sad for the dead child.

The parents of the deceased child put all the blame on the car owner and insisted on demanding compensation from the car owner. This kind of behavior is like using a dead child to touch porcelain, and the reason given by the child's parents is that if the car owner locks the car, the child will not be able to enter the car and will not be trapped in the car. The parents' reasons are like taking them out of context, but if one of the parents of the two families goes out with the child, there will be no behavior of the child entering other people's cars, even if the child goes out by himself, if the parents usually educate the child properly, tell them not to enter people's homes at will, let alone touch other people's things at will, there will be no such thing.

In the final analysis, it is caused by the failure of parental guardianship and improper education.

The responsibility lies with the parents, because the owner's car is parked in the courtyard of his house, and it is the tragedy caused by the parents who do not take good care of their children.

The biggest responsibility for the suffocation of the two boys in the car lies in the fact that the parents did not fulfill their duty of care, because the children are very active nowadays, and parents should not take their eyes off the field of vision for a moment.

Parental Responsibilities. The tragedy was caused by the failure of the parents to take good care of the children, causing them to run into other people's cars to play.

The two boys suffocated in their carIt is the responsibility of the guardian.

The fact that two boys in Huadu, Guangzhou, were found to have suffocated in the car continues to attract attention. Some lawyers believe that according to the content of the ** report, the two boys in this case died accidentally, and the owner of the car does not bear criminal or civil liability, and the main responsibility lies with the guardian.

Fu Jian, a lawyer at Henan Yulong Law Firm, believes that the exemption of the car owner from criminal liability does not constitute negligence causing death. "The negligence requirements in criminal law are 'overconfident negligence' and 'negligent negligence', and the owner of the car will not expect the occurrence of a suffocation accident in the car according to the common sense cognition of ordinary people after parking, and the occurrence of the accident is an accident. ”

Fu Jian said that the owner locked the car to prevent theft, and now the owner of the case left on his own without determining whether the door was locked, which is a kind of disposal of his property rights, the law does not require the owner to leave and be locked, and the vehicle is in a private yard, the owner is not subjectively at fault for the occurrence of the accident, and the act of parking the vehicle is not a tort, and the owner does not bear tort liability in civil liability.

Two boys died of suffocation in their car. This question is something that everyone has, and I don't say which one has it, I think the parents are really bigger.

If it happened on a school bus, the person in charge of the school bus! If it is a private car, the person in charge of the private car owner!

Parents of children: ask the owner to take responsibility!

However, the owner of the car said that he was also a victim, and his car was scrapped, and behind the voice of the car owner full of grievances and anger, he never mentioned the matter of asking his parents to compensate for his losses.

01. The fundamental mistake is that parents do not take good care of their children! The owner's own car was parked in the yard for a day, and although the lock was broken, the owner was not obliged to guard it and keep the naughty child out of his car. Parents have the obligation to take care of their children, and parents have not taught their children not to enter the car in the summer to avoid accidents; The second is that the child was not supervised well, and the child was not found in time after entering the car.

02. The owner did not ask for any compensation! As far as the current situation is concerned, the owner of the car did not actually ask the child's parents to pay any compensation for the losses he suffered. After the car was parked in the yard, without knowing it, two children died inside, not to mention, for rescue, the car was also damaged and scrapped.

This is worse than "the pot came from the sky", right?

And the owner of the car has experienced such a thing, and has been troubled by the child's parents for so many days, and it is estimated that there are shadows psychologically, right? But people don't ask parents to make any compensation for losses, isn't the reason why people understand the pain of parents who have lost their children and don't want to make it worse in such a situation?

03. Is the excessive claim because of the loss of a child or just for money? The parents of the two boys claimed compensation from the car owner, is such an unreasonable claim really for the pain of losing their child? Do you really think it's wrong for the owner not to lock the door?

We don't know. But it is an indisputable fact that the owner did not make a claim, and the grievances in the heart of the owner can also be felt by netizens.

To put it mildly: don't trade your son's death for money! If it is really the fault of the car owner and the son dies, it is right for the parents to ask for monetary compensation, even if the person cannot be resurrected after death, there is nothing wrong with giving a certain amount of compensation in terms of money.

But the owner of the car is not at fault, and the parents of the deceased have no defensible reason to demand compensation from the car owner.

So, there's a world of difference between them. One made a fuss about it after the loss of a child in order to demand compensation from the owner of the car who was not responsible, and the other suffered damage from all sides but only said a simple sentence: I am also a victim. Its quality and character are immediately clear.

The owner of the car is still more rational, and the child's parents are purely vexatious, and he should be responsible for supervising the child when he goes out.

Because after the incident, the child's parents first demanded compensation from the car owner, but the car owner, who was the victim, did not ask the child's parents for compensation.

The voice of the car owner is to state the problem from an objective point of view, and the parents of the child do not consider their own responsibilities, they only feel that the world should let them, help them spoil the child, in the education of the child and deal with the problem is not rational at all, although the loss of the child is very sad, but to impose a trumped-up charge on others, that is, vexatious.

Because the angle of the car owner and the child's parents is different, the car owner thinks that the child ran into the car by himself and has nothing to do with him. Parents believe that the responsibility lies with the owner of the car, who did not lock the door.

The owner of the car believes that the accidental death of the child is due to the poor care of the parents, and his own car has been damaged, so he is also a victim. The owner of the car did not go to the parents first, but stated the facts, which is very different from the parental responsibility of the car owner!

should not be responsible, this is the same as a thief who enters the house to steal something and accidentally falls through the window and falls to his death. 1. The owner of the car parked in his own home, 2. The owner of the car did not allow you to enter his car, 3. The child is in the car, and the owner does not know. There is also a question about how parents can rest assured that two children so young left their sight, and it was completely the negligence of the parents, which led to the death of the two children.

Two people died in the car, the car must not continue to drive, and it will be much cheaper to sell, whether the parents should compensate the owner for the loss, this matter will also cause psychological distress to the owner, and the parents should not compensate. Therefore, the owner of the car should not be responsible, and it is completely due to the improper supervision of the parents.

If a strange child climbs into the car and suffocates to death, the owner should bear half of the responsibility, because after all, the child climbed into it by himself, but it did happen in the owner's car, so from a legal point of view, the owner also bears some responsibility.

I don't think car owners should be responsible. Because the owner's car was placed in the yard of his home, there was no causal relationship between him and the child's death.

No. The owner of the car parked the car in his yard, and he had locked the door, but he didn't expect it to break.

Maybe my personal ideas are more extreme, I don't know much about other people's "from the legal point of view, the owner also bears part of the responsibility" is based on which law in my country to draw the conclusion? Hmm, I'm sorry I'm legally illiterate, and relevant knowledge is welcome to popularize science.

In addition, the family of the deceased believes that "the owner of the car has not apologized so far, and there is no explanation", he has not fulfilled his guardianship responsibilities, the child has an accident, and catching an innocent person as a target will probably make him feel better, if this is the case, I understand, after all, when it is cold, everyone wants to pick up the charcoal fire in front of them.

In the end, if the owner of the car "gave an explanation" at the request of the family of the deceased, apologized and lost money, then hehe, I seem to have found a good way to get rich: if your family is poor, it doesn't matter, give birth to a few more, no matter him, see when he falls down from someone else's upstairs and dies, one by one to say the law and compensate. After all, whoever let the family build the building so high and didn't look at the door and let the child in, fell down and stoned to death, he should be responsible, should lose money, should apologize, should give an explanation, if you can always feel guilty from now on and comfort and comfort every New Year's holiday.

I'm sorry, I'm a little vicious, welcome to spray.

I feel a certain amount of responsibility for not closing the car door properly, and I believe that the law will judge fairly and justly.

I don't think the owner of the car should be responsible, because the owner parked the car there at the time, and it was the child who took the initiative to climb in and cause his death, and it has nothing to do with the owner!

I feel that the owner of the car should still be partially responsible, but at the same time, the child's guardian is also responsible. It was the guardian's gross negligence that caused the child to have an accident, and the guardian failed to do it morally and legally.

Personally, I think that the parents should be responsible, after all, it is the responsibility of parents to take care of their children and protect their safety. And the owner of the car did not intentionally hurt the child, and did not even know it.

A: I think there's a responsibility.

After the man locked the car, he did not carefully check whether it was properly locked.

The child's family did not take good care of the child.

The parents of the children should be responsible, as guardians, and do not do a good job of supervising the children and ensuring the safety of the children.

It is of course the responsibility of the child's parents to climb into the car and suffocate. The parents of the children have not disciplined their children well, and they have a very heavy responsibility.

Parental responsibility, while the car owner does not have any responsibility

The child's guardian should compensate for the loss of the vehicle, this car is so unlucky, who dares to use it again?

Recently, two boys played into other people's homes and entered other people's cars, because they were still young, they touched the button that controlled the door lock in the car, causing the door to be locked, and they didn't know how to open the car door, causing them to suffocate in the car. It became a topic of discussion among netizens.

I agree with the lawyer's opinion, the owner of the car in his yard, whether the door is locked or not, is voluntary, there is no legal obligation to lock the door, so I think the owner of the car is not responsible, but I am the same car owner's view, because the child entered his car to play, his car was also scrapped, the owner of the car is also a victim, but should claim compensation from his parents.

This is a parental dereliction of duty, not the responsibility of the car owner. Allowing a young child to play by himself, resulting in the death of the child, is a result of poor parental supervision, but the parents are asking the owner to take responsibility on the grounds that the car owner did not lock the car, which is really shirking responsibility. Parents lack a sense of responsibility, at least they should know what the child is doing now, where to play, out of sight for a long time, parents should look for it, but the child's parents do not look for it, causing the child to suffocate, but let the owner take responsibility afterwards.

We often encounter liability disputes in our lives that endanger our lives and health, and we, as outsiders, often think that the victim is vulnerable and therefore sympathize with the victim. However, as outsiders, as law-abiding citizens, we should think from the perspective of the law, and we should not simply think that whoever is harmed, the victim will definitely receive compensation, regardless of whether it is the responsibility of others. The child's parents are like this, the owner of the car should also be the victim, and his car has been scrapped, and the parents not only do not think about their improper supervision, but think that they are the seriously injured party.

Although it is said that the deceased is the greatest, the parents always want to get back a little benefit, and they do not consider their own faults at all.

To sum up, I believe that the owner of the car is not responsible, and the parents should be fully responsible.