The dust of a murder case caused by a sugarcane has settled - Lawyer Zhiming's literary and artistic rights lawsuit wins the debate with medical experts
In April this year, the report "Zhiming Lawyer Represents Fatal Moldy Sugarcane Poisoning Case, Wins First Instance with Substantial Compensation" drew widespread media and public attention. Recently, great news came from the case! After the second instance trial by the Shenzhen Intermediate People's Court, all claims of our client, Mr. Yan's family, were fully supported. The court amended the first-instance judgment, awarding our client total compensation of 125 yuan.
The case lasted for four years, during which it also encountered many setbacks such as the rejection of letters and visits, the rejection of administrative litigation, and multiple appraisal institutions refusing to accept cases on the grounds of inability to appraise. Especially in the second instance appeal, the appellant (defendant in the original trial) Xin Mousheng Shopping Mall launched a strong attack in the trial, citing unclear facts, omission of important procedures, and improper application of laws in the first instance judgment. Throughout the entire case, the team of Zhiming lawyers actively responded, led by director Wang Tengfeng and team lawyers Zhang Yong, Cao Guanghui, Guo Yixuan, Peng Lianlian (intern lawyer), etc., in every important link and critical node, facing the so-called“ Medical Dispute Expert Lawyer Team; Under the pressure of powerful opponents and the skillful use of literary and artistic rights protection litigation techniques, we transformed passivity into proactivity and ultimately achieved a complete victory, once again creating a classic case.
The disaster originated from toxic sugarcane. Zhiming lawyers uphold justice and rights.
Our client’s youngest son, Yan Mou, consumed sugarcane purchased from the defendant, Xinmousheng Supermarket, on the evening of February 10, 2015. He subsequently exhibited symptoms such as convulsions, blindness, and unconsciousness. During emergency treatment, his breathing and pulse stopped. He was later transferred to Shenzhen Children’s Hospital for intensive care. After two months, on April 19, 2015, he died despite medical efforts. Following the incident, multiple media outlets in Shenzhen reported on the case, drawing widespread public and societal attention. Devastated by the loss of their child, Yan Mou’s parents sought legal assistance from Zhiming Law Firm, deciding to take legal action to seek justice for their unfortunate son. Attorney Wang Tengfeng, director of Zhiming Law Firm, and his team accepted the case and subsequently initiated a series of intensive and high-stakes litigation efforts.
The test report was released. Our client was placed in a passive position.
Just as the lawyers began their work, the Longgang Regulatory Bureau of the Shenzhen Market and Quality Supervision Commission intervened in the investigation, with city and district disease control departments conducting inquiries. From February 15 to February 17, 2015, these departments issued multiple reports, including inspection reports, investigation reports, follow-up investigation updates, and meeting minutes. These reports indicated that laboratory tests did not detect 3-nitropropionic acid in the sugarcane, and thus there was insufficient evidence to link Yan Mou’s poisoning symptoms to the moldy sugarcane. This finding of no causal relationship undoubtedly had a significant negative impact on our client’s pursuit of justice, signaling that the subsequent litigation would be much more difficult and that the hope of winning the case was fading.
The administrative remedy was rejected. The path to justice became even more challenging.
Faced with investigation conclusions that severely contradict the facts, Yan's parents felt even more grieved and helpless, hoping that the relevant authorities would "withdraw the investigation report and conduct a new test" to restore justice for them. During this period, the lawyers from our firm handled the relief procedures of petitions and administrative litigation on their behalf. First, the petition department rejected the application on the grounds that "the application has no legal basis and the matter does not fall within the scope of authority of the health and family planning department." Subsequently, we filed an administrative lawsuit, but the court dismissed our lawsuit and requests, citing reasons such as failure to meet the conditions for filing a lawsuit and that the court had lawfully performed its duties in terms of subject, procedure, content, and form. Thus, the door to exercising rights and seeking relief for our strong objections to the investigation and test reports was completely blocked.
Breaking Through Strong Resistance Overwhelming Victory in the First Instance
After encountering obstacles in various administrative relief efforts, the lawyers from our firm filed a lawsuit over the right to life with the Longgang District Court in April 2015. The court of first instance held that there was sufficient evidence of a causal link between the victim's death and the consumption of moldy sugarcane. However, based on the principle of fairness, our client was deemed to bear some fault in the case. The court ruled that the defendant, Xinmousheng Supermarket, bore primary responsibility and was liable for 60% of the compensation, while our client bore 40% of the responsibility. Accordingly, the court ordered Xinmousheng Supermarket to compensate our client for various losses totaling over 700,000 RMB.
Persistent Pursuit of Justice: Second Instance Battle Ends in Complete Victory
After the first-instance judgment, neither the plaintiff nor the defendant stopped there. The defendant, Xinmousheng Supermarket, appealed to the court, arguing that the first-instance judgment was unclear on the facts and omitted important procedures. Meanwhile, we also appealed to the court on the grounds that the first-instance judgment improperly reduced the defendant's liability. During the second-instance trial, the defendant, Xinmousheng Supermarket, raised three grounds for appeal: omission of necessary co-litigants (suppliers and warehousers), unclear factual findings, and improper application of the law, in a vain attempt to further evade liability beyond the 60% responsibility imposed in the first instance. Faced with the opponent's攻势, our lawyers did not passively defend but actively counterattacked, presenting strong grounds for appeal and rebuttal arguments. Our appeal directly argued that there was a direct causal link between our client Yan's consumption of sugarcane sold by Xinmousheng Supermarket and his death, and that Xinmousheng Supermarket should bear full responsibility. In response to the opponent's series of fallacies, our rebuttal emphasized: first, regardless of Xinmousheng Company's relationship with suppliers and warehousers, it cannot change its identity as the seller, and the absence of suppliers and warehousers from the lawsuit does not alter its status as a proper defendant. Second, the existence of the causal relationship was carefully determined by the first-instance trial committee, and the effectiveness of the judicial findings cannot be weakened by earlier documentary evidence such as the disease control department's meeting minutes and investigation reports. Third, our client fully cooperated with the autopsy after the incident, providing an objective and truthful basis for the evidence in the case. After the second-instance trial, our arguments were fully adopted by the court, which overturned the first-instance judgment and issued a revised ruling.
