Legal justice does not carry the burden of the elderly, and fair trials do not taste the blood-soaked buns of others.
Compiled from: Supreme People's Court, Jufa
Case review
[2] On the afternoon of June 13, 2020, 67-year-old Gu was shopping at a supermarket and placed two eggs into his pants pocket, an act noticed by supermarket employee Li. After Gu finished checking out at the cash register and was about to leave, Li ran out from the shelf area and called Gu to stop. Subsequently, several supermarket staff members conversed with Gu, during which Li tugged at Gu's sleeve.
[3] The negotiation failed, and as more customers gathered to watch, Gu spoke while walking away. Another staff member held Gu's sleeve and followed him. When Gu reached a freezer, he suddenly collapsed. Supermarket employee Zhou immediately called 110, objectively describing the cause and process of the dispute, as well as the fact of Gu's sudden collapse. Reminded by the police dispatcher, Zhou also called 120. During this time, two passing customers performed chest compressions on Gu. Later, medical personnel arrived, provided emergency treatment, and rushed Gu to Nantong Traditional Chinese Medicine Hospital for resuscitation, but he ultimately died, with the cause of death being myocardial infarction.
[4] On July 9 of the same year, Gu's family filed a lawsuit against the supermarket. The family argued that Gu took the eggs because he had previously bought stale eggs and failed to get a refund. Even if Gu's act of taking the eggs was wrong, he returned them immediately when discovered by the staff. However, the supermarket employees still restricted Gu's freedom of movement, leading to his sudden death after being surrounded by onlookers. The supermarket also failed to take timely rescue measures, delaying emergency treatment.
[5] The supermarket argued that Gu stole eggs while shopping and was caught by an employee, who stopped the act out of job responsibility without insulting or assaulting Gu, exercising the supermarket's rights within legal and reasonable bounds. After Gu suddenly collapsed, the employee immediately called 110 and 120 for emergency aid. Gu later died despite hospital resuscitation, diagnosed with myocardial infarction, meaning he died from his own illness, with no causal link to the supermarket's lawful actions. Therefore, the supermarket requested the court to reject the plaintiff's claims.
[1] Court Opinion
[6] The court of first instance held that whether the defendant supermarket should bear responsibility for Gu's death, what kind of responsibility, and the extent of liability should be determined by law. A person who infringes upon another's civil rights due to fault shall bear tort liability. Tort liability requires four elements: harm, wrongful act, causation between harm and wrongful act, and fault of the actor. As a commercial supermarket, the defendant could advise customers on improper behavior within reasonable limits.
After discovering Gu's misconduct, the defendant's employee grabbed Gu's sleeve, but this action did not exceed reasonable limits. Gu's death was caused by myocardial infarction; for sudden cardiac arrest, effective on-site CPR and early defibrillation are crucial, with the golden rescue window being 4 to 6 minutes after cardiac arrest. Gu's death resulted from the progression of his own disease. Due to the sudden onset, the defendant also called 110 and 120, fulfilling their duty of safety and basic rescue obligations.
In summary, the Chongchuan Court held that the defendant supermarket and its employees did not commit any tortious acts, and there was no causal relationship between the defendant's actions and Gu's death. In accordance with Articles 6 and 37 of the Tort Liability Law of the People's Republic of China, the court dismissed all of the plaintiff's claims.
Gu's family, dissatisfied with the first-instance verdict, argued that the supermarket failed to fulfill its duty of safety and basic rescue obligations, and appealed to the Nantong Intermediate People's Court, requesting the reversal of the original judgment and a ruling in favor of all the plaintiff's claims.
After trial, the second-instance court found that the first-instance judgment had clear factual findings and correct application of the law, and thus rendered a second-instance verdict: dismiss the appeal and uphold the original judgment.
[1] The author's perspective
The author believes the key point of this case is whether there is a causal relationship between Gu's death from illness and the supermarket.
First, when the supermarket employee discovered Gu taking eggs without permission, they spoke with him and attempted to stop him, which was within the employee's duties and the supermarket's legal rights. From the employee's actions, initially they only verbally communicated with Gu; as Gu kept walking outward, the employee then tugged at Gu's sleeve. Subsequently, more onlookers gathered, and Gu fell to the ground. The author believes that whether the supermarket verbally communicated with Gu or tugged his sleeve, these actions were within normal and reasonable bounds of exercising their rights, without excessive or aggressive movements. Therefore, the supermarket's actions were justified.
Secondly, the supermarket was not aware of Gu’s physical condition beforehand. After Gu collapsed, the supermarket immediately called 110, and then, following the police’s instructions, called 120 for rescue. Although nearly 20 minutes had passed since Gu’s collapse, the incident was sudden, and the supermarket’s prompt call to 110 was in line with general social cognition and was reasonable, indicating that the supermarket had fulfilled its safety obligation.
Finally, the author believes that court judgments should be based on facts and the law, not driven by emotions. Although Gu’s death was a heavy blow to his family, whether the supermarket should bear responsibility is unrelated to emotions and should be determined by the law.
