Zoo tiger wounding mother tiger to save women count courageous – new network ssdao

Zoo tiger wounding: mother tiger to save women count courageous? Beijing – third eye week mainly due to a "prompted the brave rescue", probably from the heart of motherly love and affection, but not completely has nothing to do with justice". Recently, the high-profile Beijing zoo tiger wounding incident in Badaling has made new progress. Ms. Zhao has been bitten by a civil lawsuit to the Yanqing court, to the Badaling wildlife park claims more than 155 yuan, and has been accepted by the court filing. In the indictment, Ms. Zhao pointed out that in the Badaling wild zoo is not effective help, no statutory duty to rescue the mother get off the rescue, the property should belong to the "good Samaritan", the Badaling wild zoo should bear the full compensation for the death of the mother. See the reports, many people are wondering: mother to save the woman belongs to the "heroic"? In the eyes of ordinary people, "Samaritan" occurs mainly in between strangers is a positive moral evaluation. The main reason for a week "brave" rescue, probably from the heart of motherly love and affection, but not completely has nothing to do with justice". In the legal level, there is no strict definition for ". Only the most authoritative statements appear in the Ministry of civil affairs, the Ministry of education and other seven ministries in 2012 jointly formulated the "on strengthening the protection of courageous people.". The "opinion" said: "the state of citizens outside the statutory duties, legal obligation, in order to protect the national interests, public interests and other personal and property safety to behavior, protected by law……" From the legislative point of view, this is not a strict legal concept. From the legal level, this is just a government regulatory documents. Therefore, this opinion can not be the main basis for the court decision. Skip certain language of Zhao in the complaint, return to the essence of the legal relationship, Zhao Zhou on its parent on the no statutory obligation to rescue that is entirely correct. Parents have the obligation to support their children, but once the child into adulthood, then regardless of the danger to rescue their children, it is no longer a legal obligation. Therefore, the focus of the case is transformed into: Zhou in the absence of legal aid obligations, to assist the Badaling wildlife park to rescue Ms. Zhao, the zoo should be responsible for the death of Zhou liability? Yanqing District People’s government "7? 23 tiger casualties caused by tourists accident investigation group released the" accident investigation report "that, since the government had decided that the accident does not belong to the accident, so the park should not be liable for compensation. But whether the park should bear the liability for compensation, the need for judicial organs according to law, government departments have no right to make a final determination. Even if the government finds that the tiger does not belong to the safety of the injured liability accident, does not mean that the park will not bear civil liability. On the contrary, China’s law has a series of provisions are in support of Ms. Zhao claims. Such as "tort liability law", "contract law". In addition, the general provisions of the civil law, many of the provisions of ms.. For example, the "general principles of civil law," the provisions of the 109th "for prevention,"相关的主题文章: