Mother tiger mouth to save women in the end countless courage?

Ms. Zhao on his mother Zhou has no legal relief obligations
The third eye to promote Zhou "courage" to save the main reason, I am afraid also from their heart from the heart and maternal love, rather than has nothing to do with the "righteousness." Recently, the high-profile Beijing Badaling wildlife park tiger wreckage and new progress. Ms. Zhao has been bitten to Yanqing court has filed a civil action, to the Badaling wild zoo claims 155 million yuan, and has been accepted by the court. In the indictment, Ms. Zhao pointed out that in the Badaling wild zoo is not effective rescue situation, no statutory relief obligations of the mother to rescue, its nature should be "courageous", Badaling wild zoo should bear all the mother's death compensation. See the report, many people are wondering: mother save the woman is "courageous" it? In the eyes of ordinary people, "courageous" mainly occurs between strangers, is a positive moral evaluation. To promote Zhou "courage" to save the main reason, I am afraid also from their heart from the heart and maternal love, rather than has nothing to do with the "righteousness." At the legal level, there is no "courageous" strict definition. The only most authoritative expression appeared in the Ministry of Civil Affairs, Ministry of Education and other seven ministries in 2012 jointly developed the "on strengthening the rights and interests of the protection of the views of the courage." The "opinions" said: "The state of citizens in the statutory duties, legal obligations, in order to protect national interests, social and public interests and others' personal and property safety to come forward courageous behavior, according to the law to protect ... ..." from the legislative Angle, this is not a strict legal concept. From the legal level, this is only a government normative document. Therefore, this "opinion" can not be the main basis for the court decision. Jump out of the specific terms of Ms. Zhao pleadings, back to the essence of legal relations, Ms. Zhao on its mother Zhou is not a legal relief obligations of their claims, is entirely correct. Parents have the obligation to raise their children, but once their children are grown up, then regardless of their lives to rescue their children, it is no longer a legal obligation. Therefore, the focus of the case into: Zhou in the absence of statutory relief obligations to help the Badaling wild zoo to rescue Ms. Zhao, the park should be responsible for the death of Zhou's death? Yanqing District People's Government "7? 23 Northeast Tiger to the casualty of the accident investigation team," released the "accident investigation report" that since the government has determined that the accident does not belong to the safety responsibility accident, then the garden should not be liable for compensation. But whether the garden should bear the liability, the need for judicial judgments, the government departments have no right to make this final decision. Even if the government finds that tiger wounding is not a safety liability accident, it does not mean that the garden does not have to bear civil liability. On the contrary, China's law has a series of provisions are in support of Ms. Zhao's claim. Such as "tort liability law", "contract law". In addition, the "General Principles of Civil Law" in many of the provisions of Ms. Zhao favorable. For example, Article 109 of the General Principles of Civil Law stipulates that "the victim shall be liable for damage caused by the prevention, suppression of the property of the State, the collective property or the property of another person or the person, and the beneficiary may Appropriate compensation "and so on. Whether the zoo to bear the liability, to bear the number of liability? Instead of continuing to spit, it is better to move a small bench, rational onlookers, quietly see how the court ruling. Deng Xueping (lawyer)


117843000:2017-04-05 17:34:40