The old man died suddenly after being stopped for taking supermarket eggs and not checking out, does

The old man took the supermarket things and did not pay the bill, which is a wrong thing, and it is understandable for the staff to block it, which is the responsibility of the staff.

But the old man died suddenly after being stopped, because of the accident of the incident, the supermarket also needs to bear some responsibility. But it is ridiculous that his family members opened their mouths.

The supermarket should bear secondary responsibility, because the old man is in the supermarket, the old man takes something and does not pay the bill is an act of stealing, and the supermarket staff intercepts it is a legitimate act, and no one can expect this kind of thing to happen.

Supermarkets need to bear a certain responsibility, after all, the sudden death of the elderly has something to do with the supermarket.

The supermarket needs to be held responsible, because the place where the old man had an accident was in the supermarket, and after being intercepted, the old man couldn't stand it, resulting in sudden death.

There is no need to take responsibility, and it is okay to express appropriate condolences from the perspective of humanitarianism.

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.

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.

I think both sides have now come to a satisfactory answer, because the fine will definitely be dealt with in accordance with the right law.

No, because the family of the elderly believes that the supermarket is responsible and needs to make compensation, but the supermarket thinks that it is right, so the case is still being tried.

Since the final judgment is to uphold the original verdict, there must be something unsatisfactory, otherwise there would be no appeal.

The old man's supermarket was stopped for eggs and died suddenly, did both parties get a satisfactory answer? The answer is no, the family of the old man appealed because they were not satisfied with the first-instance verdict, and now the second-instance final judgment upholds the original verdict, how can the family of the elderly be satisfied.

An elderly man puts eggs in his pocket while shopping in the supermarket. At the time of checkout, he did not take it out to settle the bill, and the staff also pulled the old man to communicate with him after seeing it, and the old man suddenly fell ill and died suddenly in the process of communication. Alas, after the old man died, his relatives also sued the supermarket in court, demanding that the supermarket compensate the old man hundreds of thousands of yuan, and I don't think the supermarket should compensate.

If the supermarket compensates, then it is encouraging this unhealthy trend. <>

Old man supermarket with eggsMany elderly people will choose to go to the supermarket to take advantage of it and steal the things in the supermarket. In this way, if something goes wrong or the supermarket is responsible, then the supermarket is also very unlucky. In real life, there are also some elderly people who like to go to the supermarket when they are fine, after all, the environment in the supermarket is very good.

It is warm in winter and cool in summer, and people can not only buy things in the supermarket, but also chat and drink tea with their partners. <>

Stopped and died suddenlyAnd some elderly people usually take advantage of some small advantages in the process of buying things. Putting some items that have not been checked out of your clothes and taking them out of the supermarket is actually a very bad behavior. If the children see it in the process, they will also learn from the old man's practice and put things in their pockets and take them out.

This is not conducive to the healthy development of our society, and it will also teach bad children to have the idea of stealing. <>

ThisAn old man took the eggs, and the staff just communicated with him. Let him settle the bill or take it out, and there is no excessive language against him. And this old man also fell to the ground and died because of his sudden illness, so this supermarket does not have to bear any responsibility at all.

What this old man did was wrong, the supermarket was just stopping him, and if the supermarket compensated, then it would prove to be the supermarket's fault. Then it will contribute to the bad atmosphere in our society, and many people will follow suit. It's a bad thing, and we all want people to do something positive to influence the people around them.

Do something meaningful, not steal other people's things.