A Case Study Of Liu Mou's Lawsuit Against School Children And His Love For Convenience Stores

Common dangerous behavior is generally classified as common tort in a broad sense,and it is also accompanied by common tort application.The reason for this kind of evaluation is to comprehensively consider the value judgment behind the system.People are sometimes inevitably harmed by the behavior of two or more others.After the occurrence of the damage,due to the limitations of various factors such as time and space,technical means and our cognitive ability,it is impossible to determine the infringer who actually inflicts the damage,and it is obviously unfair for the victim that no one bears the responsibility in the end.If the common dangerous behavior in the event of infringement cases in the minors,the evidence determination,cross-examination and responsibility will be more difficult,combining the theory of common dangerous behavior of introduction and discussion,and school education institutions such as supplementary liability related knowledge,to adjust civil rights certificate standard of proof in such cases,the lower the threshold of the civil rights,increase the liability merchants,prompted merchants from inner to strengthen the responsibility of the protection of minors.Therefore,it is of certain theoretical and practical value to study the personal injury compensation case of liu mou against schoolchildren and hobby convenience stores.Through the review of literature and the comprehensive analysis of cases,the structure and content of the article are arranged as follows: part one: this chapter mainly introduces the background and reasons of the problems discussed in the paper;The significance of the research;A brief literature review of related theories;The main research methods of this paper are introduced.In the second part,this chapter mainly starts with "the case of the dispute over the right to life,the right to health and the right to body in a high-tech zone school food convenience store(hereinafter referred to as" school convenience store ")between the plaintiff liu and the defendant,introduces the case and extracts the three focuses of the dispute in this case.The third part focuses on the discussion of the focal point.Based on the theoretical analysis of the concept,constitutive elements,market share and exemption causes of common dangerous behavior,the author defines the law of toothpick crossfire as the basis of commondangerous behavior.The fourth part of this chapter mainly from the "tort liability law" article40,and combined with the case,the third party infringement of the supplementary liability of educational institutions for analysis and research,clear "during school" identification,and the responsibility of the trusteeship.Combined with the above related discussion,focus two and focus three are expounded.The fifth part of this chapter is mainly based on the research results of chapter three and chapter four,through the "toothpick crossbow" case triggered by the thinking of the corresponding Suggestions and measures.Through the use of case analysis,comparative analysis and literature research methods.In ryu v.schoolchildren,hobby stores personal tort case,case study,according to the actual circumstances of the case,the focus of dispute,the innovation of the article is that,in the common dangerous behavior overriding the negative point of view,and combining with the current judicial practice,to further expand the scope of "during the period of school,in the hope to achieve in the face of minor students is similar to the infringement,to achieve better relief and protection,so as to realize the source control,and improve the protection of minor students..