[钓鱼溺亡索赔百万]_受邀钓鱼溺亡 父母索赔百万 [fishing]_ invited drowning claims million fishing drowned parents claim millions-国足2-2叙利亚

受邀钓鱼溺亡 父母索赔百万

女孩小尹受同事邀请在昌平区某运河内钓鱼、游泳,不幸溺水死亡。女孩父母起诉运河管理公司、女儿工作单位及同事,要求赔偿丧葬费、死亡赔偿金等共计119万余元,今天上午昌平区法院开庭审理了此案。

刚入职不到一年  受邀游玩不幸身亡

小尹系北京某信息技术有限公司的一名员工,刚到公司上班不到一年。2016年8月7日下午,小尹收到该公司新聘任部门经理宋先生的邀请,与宋先生朋友以及公司同事在昌平区马池口镇某运河内钓鱼、游泳,不幸死亡,经北京市昌平区治安支队调查鉴定,死亡原因为溺水。

原告尹先生夫妇认为,北京市京密引水管理处作为运河责任管理单位,未尽到合理提醒义务和应该采取的安全措施对事故负有责任。同时宋先生是公司新聘任的部门经理,事故当天邀请小尹等同事去钓鱼、游泳,不仅仅是游玩,实际是磨合工作关系,有一定的职务性质,公司有一定的管理责任。

因此公司与部门经理宋先生、同事于先生和陈先生以及同行的张先生应该和北京京密引水管理处一起承担责任,依法赔偿丧葬费、死亡赔偿金、精神抚慰金等共计1199116元。

被告对诉讼请求有异议  公司称已赔偿六万元

今天上午,小尹的母亲出席了庭审。

被告京密引水管理处称,运河里的水是南水北调工程的饮用水,根据北京市相关法规,在运河游泳、钓鱼本来就是违法的,而且运河设置了安全警示标,尽到了安全警示的义务。所以对小尹的意外事故不承担任何责任。

被告小尹的公司称,同事之间一起相约游玩不是公司行为,是个人行为,而且事故发生后,公司已经给了小尹父母一定的补偿,所以请求法院驳回原告的诉讼请求。

其他四名被告均称,小尹作为成年人对风险有足够的认知,四人对小尹的意外事故没有任何过错。

原告代理律师出示证据称,水库管理公司只是提醒水源是饮用水,只是从保护水源的角度进行提醒,并没有从人身安全的角度提示水库的危险。

被告小尹的公司称,在微信群里提出钓鱼邀请不代表有职务性质,从微信记录看出,发出邀请只是询问,并没有强制。而且之前已经和小尹的父母达成了和解,并支付了原告六万块钱的赔偿金。

Invited fishing drowned parents claim millions

The girl, who was invited to swim and swim in a canal in Changping District, was killed by drowning. The girl’s parents sued the canal management company, her daughter’s work unit and her colleagues, asking for compensation of funeral expenses and death compensation totaling 119 yuan, and this morning the Changping District court held the case.

Just starting in less than a year home was killed by playing

Xiao Yin, an employee of an information technology company in Beijing, has just arrived in the company for less than a year. The afternoon of August 7, 2016, Xiao Yin received Mr. Song manager of the new appointment of the departments of the company and Mr. Song invited friends and colleagues in Changping District Machi Town of a canal in fishing, swimming, died in Beijing City, Changping District public security detachment investigation and identification, the cause of death was drowning.

Mr. and Mrs. Yin of the plaintiff believe that the administration of water conservancy in Beijing is responsible for the management of the canal, and has failed to fulfill its duty of reasonable warning and the safety measures that should be taken to be responsible for the accident. At the same time, Mr. Song is a newly appointed manager, the day of the accident to invite colleagues Xiao Yin to fishing, swimming, not only play, is actually running in the working relationship, with the nature of the duties of the company have certain management responsibility.

Therefore, Mr. song company and department manager Mr. Chen and colleagues and peers should be Mr. Zhang and Beijing Jingmi Diversion Management Office with responsibility, according to the law of compensation for funeral expenses, death compensation, mental solatium total of 1199116 yuan.

The defendant to claim any company said it had sixty thousand yuan compensation

This morning, Xiao Yin’s mother attended the trial.

The defendant Jingmi Diversion Management Office said, the canal water is water diversion project of drinking water in Beijing City, according to the relevant laws and regulations, swimming and fishing in the canal and the canal was illegal, set up a safety warning mark to safety warning obligation. Therefore, Xiao Yin’s accident does not bear any responsibility.

The company said the defendant Xiao Yin, colleagues together to play is not the company’s behavior, personal behavior, and after the accident, the company has given some compensation for small Yin parents, so ask the court to dismiss the plaintiff’s claim.

The other four defendants said Xiao Yin, as an adult, had sufficient knowledge of the risks, and four had no fault for Xiao Yin’s accident.

The plaintiff acted as a lawyer to show evidence that the management of the reservoir only reminded the source of water as drinking water, but warned only from the point of view of the protection of water sources, and did not reveal the danger of the reservoir from the angle of personal safety.

Defendant Xiao Yin’s company said that in the WeChat group, "fishing invitation" does not indicate the nature of the job. From the records of WeChat, it is only mandatory to ask for an invitation, but it is not mandatory. In addition, he has reached a settlement with Xiao Yin’s parents and paid the plaintiff sixty thousand yuan in compensation.相关的主题文章: