On the question of a little bit of legal responsibility

According to the provisions of the Consumer Law, it is the consumer who purchases the goods and receives the service, and the operator shall ensure the personal safety and property safety of the consumer. Therefore, the above tips can only exempt the operator from part of the liability, but not all of the liability.

However, it should be reminded that different courts determine the amount of partial liability differently. In any case, since the operator has reminded him, as a consumer, he should also fulfill his responsibility to keep his property, otherwise, once it is damaged or lost, it will be troublesome to pull the skin.

There is a question of liability here, not to say that there is no need or must bear legal responsibility.

For example, the first half of the prompt you provide, "Please lock the vehicle", or "Please take care of your valuables", if you notice both of these and take precautions, and you have evidence that the parking lot is designated by the store for consumers, then the store is responsible, and in general, there must be evidence.

It depends. If you do your best and still get stolen, for example, if you lock something up, or if it is stolen, the merchant is responsible. If you're careless, then the merchant may not be responsible.

1. If the parking lot is open, unsupervised and free of charge, the shopping mall or hotel will not be responsible for the loss of the vehicle.

2. Unless it can be proved that the mall or hotel management is at fault, it will not be liable for the loss of valuables. For example, if your wallet is stolen when you go to the department store to buy something, is the department store likely to lose your money?

If the mall has a parking lot under its own management, the customer parks the vehicle in the designated parking lot, and the mall is liable to compensate for the loss of the vehicle.

Where managers of public places such as hotels, shopping malls, banks, stations, and entertainment venues, or organizers of mass events, fail to fulfill their obligations to ensure safety and cause harm to others, they shall bear tort liability.

Where damage to others is caused by the conduct of a third party, the third party shall bear tort liability; If the manager or organizer fails to fulfill the security obligations, they shall bear the corresponding supplementary responsibilities.

So the premise of their compensation is that they have not fulfilled their safety and security responsibilities, but it is difficult for you to prove why they did not fulfill their responsibilities.

Usually irresponsible. There are also courts that have found responsibility. There is no unanimous conclusion.

Legal basis: Article 186 of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China: Where the personal rights and interests or property rights and interests of the other party are harmed due to a breach of contract by one of the parties, the injured party has the right to choose to request that it bear liability for breach of contract or tort liability.

Why take responsibility:

1) For individuals: they can exercise their own ability, be respected by others and recognized by society, and enhance their value in dedication.

3) To the society: to create a good interpersonal atmosphere for everyone and for me, and promote social harmony and stable development.

Whether the mentally ill should be held responsible for committing crimes.

Where a mentally ill person causes harmful results when he is unable to recognize or control his or her own behavior, and it is confirmed through legally-prescribed procedures, he does not bear responsibility for the criminal matter, but his family or guardian shall be ordered to strictly supervise and receive medical treatment; When necessary, by ** compulsory medical treatment. An intermittent mentally ill person who commits a crime when he is mentally normal shall bear criminal responsibility. Where a mentally ill person who has not completely lost the ability to recognize or control his or her own conduct commits a crime, he shall bear criminal responsibility, but the punishment may be mitigated or commuted.

Is the guarantor on the IOU responsible.

The guarantor on the IOU is responsible. Guarantors are divided into general guarantors and joint and several guarantors. General Guarantor:

When the borrower fails to repay the loan, the creditor has the right to request the general guarantor to pay off the debt it guarantees for the borrower. Joint guarantor: Regardless of whether the borrower is able to repay the loan or not, as long as the repayment period has expired, the creditor has the right to require the joint guarantor to pay off the debt it guarantees for the borrower.

Whether it is a general guarantor or a joint guarantor, according to the agreement of the parties. If there is no agreement on whether it is a general guarantee or a joint and several guarantee, it is deemed to be a joint and several guarantee.

Article 686 of the Civil Code [Methods of Guarantee] The methods of guarantee include general guarantee and joint and several liability guarantee. If the parties do not agree on the form of guarantee in the guarantee contract or the agreement is not clear, they shall bear the guarantee liability in accordance with the general guarantee.

Legal basis. Article 176 of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China [Civil Obligations and Liability] Civil entities are to perform civil obligations and bear civil liability in accordance with the provisions of law or in accordance with the agreement of the parties.

Liability is a special obligation to compensate, enforce or accept punishment for damage arising from specific legal facts, that is, a secondary obligation arising from the breach of a primary obligation.

Article 87 of the Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China stipulates that crimes shall not be prosecuted after the following time periods:

Where the statutory maximum sentence is less than 5 years imprisonment, the statute of limitations for prosecution is 5 years.

Where the statutory maximum sentence is between 5 and 10 years imprisonment, the statute of limitations for prosecution is 10 years.

Where the statutory maximum sentence is 10 years or more imprisonment, the statute of limitations is 15 years.

Where the statutory maximum penalty is life imprisonment or death, the statute of limitations is 20 years. If it is found necessary to prosecute after 20 years, it must be reported to the Supreme People's Procuratorate for approval, and it can still be prosecuted.

It depends on whether or not you have entrusted the care of this parent at the time. In addition, if the parent is the parent of one of the 1-year-old daughter and the 8-year-old child, he also has the obligation to take care of the existence of the obligation, and according to the fault factor of the child's push, the parent of the 8-year-old child needs to be liable for compensation, but now the parent's responsibility and the amusement park's liability need to be deducted from it.

I think the responsibility lies with both of your parents, but because the other child's child is the victim, and your child is negligent and injured, it is also the perpetrator, so you should bear the main responsibility.

Both parties should be responsible for this. Because the victim's parents did not take good care of their daughter. The biggest responsibility lies with the boys.

The boy's parents didn't take a good look at their children and squeezed their daughters down. Parents of boys bear the greatest responsibility. The detailed compensation is still determined by the law!

The situation is complicated. If it's just what you say, I personally think that your son is primarily responsible and the other party is secondarily responsible.

Hello, the responsibility lies with the eight-year-old boy, the boy cannot be held responsible, only his guardian bears it! Thank you.

Your family is the main responsibility, and the amusement park is secondary. If the other parent is indeed negligent, he is also responsible. Your family is basically 50% or 70% responsible.

Of course, it is your son's responsibility, because it was your son who hit someone, and at this time it should be the parents who take responsibility.

In this case, of course, your family's responsibility is greater, because it was your son who sent someone down and broke his head.

This is the responsibility of both parents. Children should be accompanied by a parent when playing the slide. The slide is suitable for children aged 3 to 6 years old.

It is too young for the parents to keep an eye on it all the time, and if his parents go and take care of the child all the time, such a thing should not happen. But you are also responsible, after all, it was your child who accidentally squeezed someone else's child down, and you were not there. There is no such thing to negotiate, and it is not so important to have more or less medical expenses if there is a condition, after all, it is someone else's child who has suffered, and if there is no condition, explain it to the parents on the other side to see what kind of situation the other side has.

The child is on the line as soon as possible, it is not so important to have more money and less money, and it is also considered to accumulate virtue for yourself, and at the same time, you should also warn your children to pay attention to safety when playing in the future, in addition to your own safety, you should also pay attention to the safety of others, don't just care! If you insist on the division of responsibilities, the responsibilities are half of them, and they are all not taking good care of their children.

The responsibility of the guardian is greater, and so is the responsibility of the activity center.

Your son broke it by squeezing someone else's child down'The responsibility is definitely yours,

Go to Kuaishou and find a lawyer for advice.

The guardian shall be liable for compensation for the infringement of minors.

Yehnara Wendo answered;

1. "A proposes to wander around the workplace and have a look".

A does not have any responsibility, and it is not proposed to let you enter the high-voltage distribution room, even if you are allowed to enter the high-voltage distribution room, causing damage, it has nothing to do with A. 1. There are strict regulations on entering the high-voltage distribution room, and non-personnel are not allowed to enter; 2. C is a person with full capacity for civil conduct, and if he causes damage after entering, he shall be responsible for himself.

2. "B, as a power supply personnel, enters the high-voltage distribution room with C".

B is responsible, and B, as a manager of the high-voltage distribution room, allows others to enter the high-risk distribution room without authorization, and bears the responsibility of duty.

3. C is responsible, C is not a staff member of the room, enters the high-voltage distribution room without authorization, and causes damage, and he is also responsible.

In this case, C, as a victim, can sue, but in the division of responsibility, the extent of each responsibility must be determined according to the actual situation.

First of all, A, as the proposer, was inappropriate in his own proposal, but as both had the right to choose, A did not force two people to take them to the high-voltage distribution room.

Secondly, B, as a power supply officer, took C into the high-voltage distribution room knowing that he did not have the relevant professional knowledge and qualifications, and he was primarily responsible in this case.

Thirdly, C, as an individual, should have noticed the relevant warning signs when entering the high-voltage distribution room, and it was a violation of the corresponding regulations to enter without permission, so he should also bear secondary responsibility.

It's harder, after all, they're all adults, and they should be able to tell the difference between safe and unsafe...

A proposal, you can choose to go or not.

btook you in, but did not ask you to move around freely.

So A and B should only be at fault, but not at fault. They can be asked to pay appropriate compensation. But the main fault is still himself.

The above is to give people a point of view!!

The employee went to the hospital for an examination and found a hemangioma, and the boss was not legally legally responsible.

The boss is not responsible, and the employee is caused by his own illness.