论文部分内容阅读
原告李萍、龚念夫妇二人带着8岁的儿子龚硕皓,与朋友到五月花餐厅用餐时,旁边的“福特”包房在服务员开启伪装成酒盒的爆炸物时发生爆炸,龚硕皓经抢救无效死亡,李萍伤愈后被评定为二级残疾。据此,夫妻起诉要求五月花公司赔偿403万元。一审认定五月花公司不构成违约和侵权,不能因此承担民事责任。二审判决五月花餐厅赔偿李萍、龚念30万人民币。为何在业已明确侵权责任、违约责任不成立情况下,赔偿责任依旧存在?本文欲真实地重温法院的判决思路,审慎挖掘法官判决的出发点,从中寻找到司法之内的正义如何实现。
The plaintiffs Li Ping and Gong Nian couple took their 8-year-old son Gong Shuohao and dined with friends at the Mayflower restaurant next to the “Ford” private room when the waiter opened the disguised as a box of explosives, Gong Shuo Hao died of rescue invalid, Li Ping was assessed as secondary disability after injury. Accordingly, the couple sued Mayflower 4.53 million compensation claims. The first instance held that Mayflower Company did not constitute a breach of contract and infringement and could not therefore assume civil liability. Second trial verdict Mayflower restaurant compensation Li Ping, Gong read 300,000 yuan. Why the liability still exist when the liability of tort and liability of breach of contract have not been set up? This article tries to review the judgment of the court truthfully and excavate the starting point of judge’s judgment prudently to find out how to realize the justice within the judiciary.