The old man took the supermarket eggs and refused to check out and died suddenly, should the superma

No, supermarket employees are also working normally, employees have the obligation and responsibility to go to the supermarket, and they also have the right to let the elderly buy things to pay the bill, and if they don't settle the bill, the employees can't explain to the boss, I think the employees are not wrong with the normal operation, and they should not be responsible.

Personally, I don't think supermarkets should be fully responsible, but they still have to bear some of the responsibility. It is indeed the old man's fault that he took the eggs and did not settle the bill, and he should be reasoned with at the checkout. Maybe the old man doesn't understand this, but he can explain the reason to his family.

Instead of moving his hands and feet, the old man died suddenly. So the supermarket is partly responsible, and the old man should also be partly responsible.

I don't think the supermarket is fully responsible, it is the old man who does not pay the bill first, and the staff must come out to stop it, and you can't take items in public places at will just because you are an old man.

There should be no full responsibility. Because the old man refuses to settle the bill first, the supermarket should stop the old man, which may be more intense, but the supermarket is not fully responsible for sudden death.

The supermarket should not be fully responsible, because the elderly may have been sick at that time, but it was just a very coincidence.

I don't think the supermarket should be held responsible, in this case, the supermarket did not commit any violations, and the old man died because of his own reasons.

Supermarkets should not be held solely responsible, this can only be considered an accident, and no one has deliberately or foreseen such an outcome.

Our daily life can never be separated from food, and to the supermarket to buy food, daily necessities has become people's normal behavior, after all, in the supermarket in the complete range of goods, and the selection of many types, naturally welcomed by everyone, young people are actually fond of visiting the supermarket, can hang out at will without hindrance, and some of the old people to the supermarket to wander around is actually to rub the air conditioner, but most of the people know that after purchasing items in the supermarket, you can go to the cashier to check out, but there is such an old manWhat happened after buying in the supermarket is also an act that makes the masses think it is unreasonable, and everyone resents such a practice.

After the old man selected eggs in the supermarket, he put two eggs in his pocket, and was found by the staff at the checkout, and immediately stopped the old man, unfortunately the old man died suddenly. After the incident, the family of the old man immediately sued the supermarket in court, and the supermarket needs to claim money according to a certain percentage, the matter has caused many people to be puzzled here, there is no payment after shopping in the supermarket, the staff immediately stopped and checked it is also within the scope of his work accusation, and also saw in the monitoring that the staff just pulled the sleeves of the old man and other behaviors, such actions did not exceed a reasonable range, and the old man's complication was only caused by his own disease, The supermarket has fulfilled its safety and security obligations and basic rescue obligations, the court judgment is to reject the elderly family's claim for compensation, this judgment really reassures the masses a lot, if the elderly disease and accidental death also need to bear the risk of the staff, does it not mean that the thief can only watch him leave, and can not stop or speak so as not to cause serious consequences? Court.

Supermarket staff have fulfilled their work obligations, and it is not uncommon for family members to use the elderly to ask for compensation, and the law is also humane, and the judgment has also played a guiding role.

In the first instance: Gu's family sued the supermarket, arguing that the supermarket should bear responsibility for the death of the elderly and compensate more than 380,000 yuan, and the court ruled that the supermarket staff's behavior was a self-help act, which was the self-protection of the right holder's legal rights, and rejected all the claims of Gu's family, and Gu's family was dissatisfied with the first-instance judgment and appealed. In the second instance:

The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the original verdict.

The court rejected the family's claim for compensation, and the old man died of a myocardial infarction, so the supermarket was not liable.

In announcing the judgment, the judge referred to Guiding Case No. 142 of the Supreme People's Court, namely the "Case of Sudden Death of an Elderly Man Hitting and Injuring a Child and Leaving the Body." The gist of the adjudication of this case states: "In order to protect the legitimate rights and interests of the party injured by the collision, the actor dissuades the other party from leaving the scene of the collision and does not exceed a reasonable limit, which is a lawful act."

Where the dissuaded person dies suddenly due to his or her own illness, and his close relatives request that the perpetrator bear tort liability, the people's court will not support it.

In the first instance, the court ruled that the supermarket was not responsible, and in the second instance, the judgment of the first instance was upheld.

In the end, the court found the supermarket and the salesperson not liable. Because it was wrong for the old man to take eggs, it was his job to stop the supermarket salesman, and he didn't know that he was sick.

In the process, the family demanded compensation of 380,000 yuan from the supermarket, but the court rejected the application, and also felt that the supermarket and its employees did not commit illegal and criminal acts.

The court sentenced the old man to full responsibility, which has nothing to do with the supermarket. Because the behavior of the old man is very immoral.

The court ruled that it had nothing to do with the supermarket, because the old man's approach was too excited, and the supermarket would not pay, so I think we should blame the old man himself, and we should take more care of the old people in our own family when we usually live.

The judgment should not bear any responsibility for the supermarket, and the supermarket's practices were fully compliant in the course of this incident.

The sudden death of the old man was completely an accident and had nothing to do with the supermarket. It is definitely not right for the elderly to take eggs and not check out, and the interests of supermarkets should also be protected by law. Therefore, the final judgment of this case is that the supermarket is only responsible for part of the moral compensation.

In this case, the supermarket employee should be irresponsible, the supermarket employee intercepted the old man after he found out that he was stealing the eggs, and asked him, but the old man himself did not admit it, and he was emotional, and the old man died suddenly due to excessive emotion, which was also the old man's own fault.

Supermarkets are not responsible. Because the family of the old man sued the supermarket for causing the death of the old man, but the surveillance clearly saw that the supermarket staff was only performing their duties and did not harm the old man, and the doctor proved that the old man had a brain disease.

Of course, the supermarket is responsible, after all, the accident that occurred in the supermarket, the old man was stopped with eggs, and both parties were responsible, and one party could not be completely held responsible.

No. The old man took the eggs before he paid for them, and the supermarket stopped him according to the normal handling procedures.

The supermarket is responsible, and this is because the elderly person died as a result of buying something at the supermarket. So supermarkets should take some responsibility.

There is no responsibility, because the old man's behavior has violated the law and is very immoral.

The supermarket was not responsible in this matter, because the old man had already committed an act of stealing eggs, so he was stopped by the staff.

I think supermarkets are also responsible, because supermarkets' negligent management of employees will lead to the final situation, so supermarkets also have a certain responsibility.

The supermarket party is the party without fault, first of all, the other party is at fault first, the employee finds out and stops it in time, and the other party's body suddenly abnormal, the supermarket party immediately contacts the medical staff and takes corresponding protective measures.

I think there is, after all, it is in the supermarket and there is a dispute, but it still depends on the result given by the legal department, so that it will be more accurate and fair.

Since the supermarket staff did not know about the sudden illness of the visitor, it was reasonable to call the police at the first time, and they also chose to dial 120 at the second time, without bearing the corresponding responsibility.

The case of the elderly supermarket being stopped and suddenly dying, does the supermarket need to be responsible for this? In fact, in terms of the real legal responsibility, it should not be responsible, why is it said that it is not responsible? That's because the sudden death of the old man was not due to the supermarket, it must have been due to his personal reasons.

The main reason is not because of the supermarket, so the supermarket is not legally responsible, but out of humanitarian responsibility, the supermarket needs to be responsible, but this humanitarian responsibility is voluntarily responsible for the supermarket, but no one can ask the supermarket to pay the liability, but out of legal responsibility, the supermarket is not responsible. <>

If the moral kidnapping insists on the supermarket being responsible, it is said that the old man is there. Accidents in the supermarket, in fact, this is the reason for the sudden death of the moral kidnapping of the elderly, it must be because of his personal physical reasons, not because of the supermarket, the supermarket does not need to bear any legal responsibility, but if these people are always messing around to ask the supermarket to be responsible for this reason, then this is a moral kidnapping, and the supermarket does not need to bear any responsibility. <>

Out of humanity but the old man died suddenly in the supermarket, so the supermarket should compensate for the humanitarian responsibility, but this depends on whether the individual in the supermarket is willing to bear this humanitarian responsibility, but legally speaking, the supermarket does not need to bear any responsibility, and no one can ask him to be responsible, because it does not need to bear legal responsibility. <>

In general, legally speaking, the supermarket does not need to bear any responsibility, but as for the humanitarian responsibility, he needs to bear the humanitarian responsibility, but this head responsibility is that the supermarket itself needs to be responsible, no one can ask for it, and no one can force the supermarket to be responsible, all of which depends on whether the supermarket is willing to bear this humanitarian responsibility, of course, this is only voluntary, no one can ask for it, and this responsibility is also responsible for their own responsibility, no one to force it.

No, you don't. Because the elderly are sick and the supermarket has dialed 120 for help**, they do not need to be responsible for this.

There is no need to be responsible for this, because this old man's behavior is very incorrect, and this old man's unreasonable behavior cannot be used as a way for people to sympathize with him, and the supermarket is also maintaining normal order in the supermarket, so there is nothing wrong with it.

There is no need to be responsible. Because the cashier of this supermarket has fulfilled the responsibility of timely treatment when the old man dies suddenly, and the sudden death of the old man is because he is sick and has nothing to do with the supermarket.

In fact, the supermarket has no responsibility for this, after all, the old man took the eggs by himself, and without the consent of others, this is the act of stealing, and he will suffer the consequences.

In fact, for us, the sudden death of the elderly supermarket with eggs is indeed surprising in the final trial, and for us on the one hand, it is because of the old man's age, on the other hand, it may indeed be because of the nervousness after being stolen, so it leads to sudden deathHowever, at present, there is still no satisfactory answer to this matter, but the court believes that the supermarket has not done anything wrong, so because of this, there is no need to bear the corresponding responsibility, so the problem can be considered from the following aspects. <>

1, the old man was stopped and died suddenly in the supermarket with eggs, it is indeed because of the old man's age, and it is precisely because of this that he has done something wrong that has led to the consequences, so the old man also bears an unshirkable responsibility. In fact, I have to say that the old man's supermarket was stopped from taking eggs and died suddenly, but it was unexpected, so on the one hand, it was indeed because the old man was older, and it was precisely because of this that he suffered a blow that led to sudden death, so he has an unshirkable responsibility, and it is precisely because of this that he should be more responsible for the consequences of his actions. <>

2. The court upheld the original verdict in the second instance, and for us, the supermarket should not be held responsible, and the consequences of stealing by the elderly should be severely punished by the law. In fact, it has to be said that the court upheld the original verdict in the second instance, and for the old man's stealing, it does have to bring terrible consequences to himself, and for the supermarket, there is really no need to take responsibility, and the statement of teammates and the old man's children is really untenable. <>

3. If the supermarket does not obstruct the theft of the elderly, it will indeed bring losses to the supermarket, so it has to be said that it is indeed the elderly who took the initiative to commit the crime first, so they should bear the corresponding responsibility. In fact, I have to say that the sudden death of the old man supermarket with eggs is unexpected, and for us the supermarket did not do anything wrong on the one hand, it is indeed because they did not make a good plan, but also caused the heart to bear it, on the other hand, if the court believes that Lao Yang's approach is not wrong, and the supermarket should be held accountable, then it is indeed not conducive to the establishment of normal values for us, and it is precisely because of this that it should reflect the fairness and rigor of the law.

In fact, I have to say that the old man supermarket took eggs and died suddenly, for us, the reason why the old man supermarket took eggs was stopped was because the old man took the initiative to commit a crime, so he should bear the corresponding consequences, on the other hand, if the court should pay more attention to the fairness and justice of the law, so it is precisely because of this that the old man's relatives think that the practice is obviously unreasonable.

The original judgment was upheld in the second instance, the original judgment was to reject the plaintiff Gu Liang Du's litigation claim, the case acceptance fee of 2,309 yuan, borne by the plaintiff, the family of the elderly in the second instance was not satisfied, and had filed an appeal, the supermarket party expressed support for the court judgment, the old man died suddenly and his family was difficult to accept, whether he was young or a teenager, he had to think twice before doing things.