The man committed suicide and his friend sent him home and was found responsible, why is this happen

It is said that you must not persuade others when drinking, otherwise once something happens to you, it will depend on you, now wine is an indispensable thing at the dinner table, many times out of human sophistication or some other reasons, will drink。However, although the wine is delicious, it must be in moderation, and many accidents occur after drinking.

In Guangdong, a man committed suicide after being drunk, and his friend who was drinking with him sent him home, but the man's wife took the friend who sent him home to court. The court finally ruled that Li should compensate the family of the deceased more than 70,000 yuanAfter the incident, Li said that he was very aggrieved, and just sent his friend home out of his kindness, but he didn't expect that this gift would also take him to court.

At that time, Li had dinner with the deceased and several customers, and several people drank two bottles of liquor at the wine table, but because Li was going to drive, he did not drink or persuade him to drink. Later, because he was worried that a few people would not be able to go home after drinking too much, he also hid the wine, and until 8:00 in the evening, when their drinking party broke up, Li had good intentions, so he wanted to send the deceased home.

At that time, the deceased couldn't tell where his home was, so Li thought that he was still living in the previous factory, but the deceased asked him to put him in the environmental protection city. After the deceased got out of the car, Li also confirmed whether he needed to call his wife to pick him up, and the deceased said that he didn't need to, but he didn't expect that the deceased died in his home the next day.

Later, the deceased's wife sued Li, and he was sentenced to more than 70,000 yuan, I think Li is innocent, and then he did his duty, because the deceased drank too much wine, so he caused his death. I feel like it's the case now, and it's up to someone to be responsible. The wife of the deceased found that her husband did not come back all night, and she did not call the police or make inquiries, and I think his wife was also derelict in her duties.

There are several key words in this: drunk + near the "residence" + get out of the car and walk by yourself, these points are taken together, and the duty of care is not fully fulfilled, and if the drunk person dies unexpectedly, the award of compensation is understandable.

Because at the time of the judgment, it was believed that after the friend escorted the man downstairs, he did not send him home safely, and there was a certain responsibility.

Because he did not fulfill his duty of security escort. His friend was drunk unconscious, collapsed on the side of the road, and he went straight away.

It should be compensated, because the law says so. As to whether such a verdict is reasonable, whether it is right or not, and whether it can solve the problem, that is another question. In short, there is one thing that must be affirmed, that is, how the law judges, we will enforce it, not to mention the judgment of compensation, even if the judgment is to compensate for life, it must be enforced.

It is not a question of "whether it should or should not", but a question of the law that cannot be questioned. Of course, some people say that such a verdict is unreasonable, but that's another issue.

The incident occurred at a friend's party drinking, during which a person got drunk, and then his friend sent him back to his residence, only to find that the person committed suicide with a chain the next day, and then the friend who sent him home was sentenced to pay 70,000 yuan to the family of the deceased. The reason for this decision was that the friend had failed to take good care of his friend, after all, the drunk person was delirious and could not take good care of himself.

The reasons for the verdict were reasonable, and it made me decide in future gatherings with my friends that either I would not drink, or I would definitely be the drunk person, and I would never be the sober person anyway! In the past, people drank according to death, but now people drink according to death, persuade the eldest brother, don't drink, you may be a table of people who suffer if you take a sip.

In fact, everyone can understand the reason why the law ruled like this, that is, let everyone be more rational and worry a little more when drinking, and when they drink, they will drink less wine, and if they drink less wine, it is possible to save a life, and if they save a life, they may save a family. The starting point is good, but such a "one-size-fits-all" neat judgment and compensation is still unconvincing. Why?

Because people are in the wine field, the real responsibility should be themselves, you close your mouth, who can break your mouth and pour wine? There are countless reasons for someone to be "forced to drink", but have you ever thought about your life and your family when you were looking for a reason? Obviously not, but the dead are greater.

I don't think there should be compensation, the man is drunk, his friends have already sent him home, he has fulfilled his obligations, and it is too much to ask his friends to take care of each other until he sobers up, they are all adults, and they should be responsible for their own choices.

I don't think it should be compensated, the drunk man committed suicide, what does it have to do with his friends? Even if his friends don't send him home, won't he kill himself? Friends are also to blame.

No, if it's a suicide, then it doesn't have a clear relationship with anyone else, let alone just send him home.

It shouldn't be paid. The drunk man died by suicide and cannot be blamed on the friend who sent him home, and sending him home was only out of compassion, and the drunk man should not be held responsible.

Because the judge held that the friend who sent him home only sent him to the vicinity of his residence, and suggested that he should be beaten ** but did not do so, the court held that the friend had not fulfilled his duty to escort him safely, and found that he was liable for 5 percent.

Because he failed to escort his friend home safely, which led to his friend's suicide, the court awarded him compensation.

According to the court's judgment, the court held that his friend had failed to fulfill his obligation to escort safely, and he should bear 5% of the liability, which was more than 70,000 yuan.

Because "the same drinker is responsible", this case is a suicide of the drinker, in addition to considering whether the duty of care has been fulfilled, there is a certain difference between the legal facts and the objective facts, so the friend who sent him back was awarded compensation.

Because he failed to fulfill his duty of safety escort, as a friend and the deceased were at fault to a certain extent, he should bear civil liability corresponding to his fault. He needs to bear 5% responsibility.

The man committed suicide after being drunk, and his friend sent him home and was sentenced to be responsible, ** According to the comparison of the cause of the man's death and the evidence at the scene, it was finally concluded that it was suicide, and the man's friend was sentenced according to the requirements of the law!

When a friend sent him home, he was still conscious, and the two of them chatted when they were in the co-pilot, and when they got out of the car, they also asked if they needed to call ** to let his wife come down to pick him up, and the man also waved that he could go, but when the man was found the next day, a chain was wrapped around his neck, and the person was dead.

Maybe the drunk man committed suicide after being sent home by a friend, and the reason for the suicide may be that after returning home, the family said that he or his wife scolded him, but when a person returned home drunk, he could only sleep, and would not commit suicide, maybe the friend was not sent home, maybe something happened on the way, aside, if he really got home, I believe that the drunk person did not sleep because of him, and the incident happened when the friend left, so the person who drank with him was responsible, and the friend was kind enough to send it back, It happened that this kind of thing happened again, and it is impossible to say that it is necessary to bear it alone.

A medical examiner was called in to identify the signs of suicide on his body. This is conducive to impartiality and a clean slate to his friend.

From a legal point of view, there should be responsibility, because that's what the law says. From a personal point of view, this friend is wronged and should not be held responsible. The incident is actually a very common incident of drinking and dying, but this time it is not a dead person, but a person who committed suicide after being drunk, probably he never imagined that his suicide would cause so much attention, if he knew that this was the consequence, I am afraid he would not choose to commit suicide.

From the point of view of the law, in recent years there have been many fatalities due to drunkenness, such as drinking people at the table because of drunkenness, freezing to death on a cold night due to drunkenness, car accidents on the way home due to drunkenness, and ...... due to drunkennessA series of drunken incidents made the law stipulate a certain degree of implication, that is, the person who drank with the deceased had to pay a certain amount of responsibility.

At first, this kind of legal provision was widely supported by the society, everyone has been tired of the hypocrisy and persuasion of alcohol at the wine table, many people do not want to drink at all, in order to refuse to drink countless people find countless reasons, and even make a fake sick list, many people have the experience of being persuaded to drink at the wine table, and hate this kind of persuasion, so they are very sympathetic to the incident of drinking and killing people at the wine table, and at the same time they are even more disgusted with those who persuade to drink. So when the law imposed a certain amount of responsibility on those who drank together, there was a lot of support.

However, later developments clearly exceeded the imagination of the public, such as the case of the friend, who simply sent the drunk man home after he was drunk, which was in itself an act of caring for the friend, without thinking that his own behavior had caused him great trouble. If this friend is really responsible and really compensates for the 70,000 yuan, then who will dare to send his friend home after drinking in the future? Everyone is drunk and dies on the streets, and I am afraid that it will be the final destination.

Legally, this friend should bear this responsibility. Because this friend also went out with him, he had the obligation to supervise him.

Legally, there is responsibility, but in principle, I don't think there is responsibility. If the person is drunk, how can he tell his friends to put him down here. His wife did not know the location of her husband, but she could also find out by inquiring or contacting other friends, and the person concerned could not be blamed entirely.

Friends should be responsible. Because a friend sent him home, he should make sure that he is conscious in the future, that he does not commit some excesses, and that he is responsible for the drunk man.

In this case, the friend also needs to be held responsible, because although the friend sent him home, he did not deliver it to his family.

Wine is intimidating, wine is everyone's favorite, there are many troubles in life, a drunk relieves a thousand sorrows, but it will also do a lot of wrong things.

The drunken man went home and committed suicide, which shows that the man is depressed in his heart, and it is also because he drank too much alcohol that he will have such insanity, which leads to the extension of such sadness and tragedy.

Probably something happened, so I got drunk by drinking to kill my sorrows, and then committed suicide with the strength of alcohol, and my life may not be satisfactory.

I think the drunken mood is very unstable, and this incident should be related to his own experience, but it is not reasonable to ask the friend who sent him home to compensate.

Picking up a friend to commit suicide is generally not legally responsible, unless the deceased's suicide is closely related to himself. Responsibility rests with the person who committed suicide because the friend is a person with full capacity.

The General Principles of the Civil Law of the People's Republic of China stipulate that citizens over the age of 18 are adults with full capacity for civil conduct, can independently carry out civil activities, and are persons with full capacity for civil conduct. Citizens over the age of 16 but under the age of 18 who rely on their own labor income as their main livelihood** are regarded as persons with full capacity for civil conduct.

According to the interpretation of the Supreme People's Court, a natural person between the ages of 16 and 18 who is able to rely on his or her own labor income and maintain the general living standards of the local people may be deemed to be a person with full capacity for civil conduct who uses his or her labor income as his main livelihood.

The deceased commits suicide of his own volition and bears full responsibility.

If it is coerced to commit suicide, then divide the responsibility according to the actual situation.

Legally, it is not wronged. But judging from personal feelings, I feel wronged, more wronged than Dou E. Here's how it happened:

A group of friends got together, and after they broke up, one of them got drunk, so his friend drove him home, only to find out the next day that the drunk friend had committed suicide, so the friend who sent him home was found guilty. The reason for this sentence was that the friend did not take care of the drunken person.

The reasoning for the verdict seems reasonable, after all, we are friends, we go out to drink together, and drunk people have no ability to act and need to be taken care of, and it is reasonable to take care of drunk people as friends. But when this kind of thing is forced, it becomes weird, and this kind of rule somewhat makes us dare not drink anymore in the future.

From the point of view of the judgment, the provision is so, so it is judged. But from a friend's point of view, I am too wronged, more wronged than Dou E, I have already sent my friend home, what else do you want me to do? Do you want me to sleep with me and wait until my drunken friend is completely awake before leaving?

I don't think it's safe, in case I just left on the front foot, and this friend on the back foot committed suicide, then I don't have to blame myself? So before leaving, I have to go to the hospital to check whether there is anything wrong with my friend's body and whether my friend's mental problems are, and then go to the police station to stamp a seal, saying that after I leave at this moment, anything happens to my friend and does anything that has nothing to do with me, so I dare to leave. But in this way, I didn't dare to leave, because after I left, my friend thanked me for taking care of me, and I was distracted, and I was hit and killed when I went out, and I had to be responsible, so I had to marry him after drinking a glass of wine with my friend, and I have been inseparable from him ever since, eating, sleeping, living and going to the toilet together, otherwise what if he commits suicide by stuffing himself into the toilet?!

Of course, the above statement is a bit extreme, but this is not the point, the point is that this extreme statement shows that this kind of problem cannot be solved from the perspective of a drunk person or a friend, and it is impossible to get a satisfactory solution!