| | |
Notice of the Supreme People's Court on Issuing the Sixth Group of Guiding Cases | | 最高人民法院关于发布第六批指导性案例的通知 |
| (No. 18 [2014] of the Supreme People's Court) | | （法〔2014〕18号） |
| The higher people's courts of all provinces, autonomous regions, and municipalities directly under the Central Government; the Military Court of the People's Liberation Army; and the Production and Construction Corps Branch of the Higher People's Court of Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region: | | 各省、自治区、直辖市高级人民法院，解放军军事法院，新疆维吾尔自治区高级人民法院生产建设兵团分院： |
| Upon deliberation and decision of the Judicial Committee of the Supreme People's Court, the case of Sun Yinshan v. Jiangning Store of Nanjing Auchan Supermarket Co., Ltd. for sales contract dispute and other three cases (Guiding Case No. 23–26) are hereby issued as the sixth group of guiding cases for reference in the trial of similar cases. | | 经最高人民法院审判委员会讨论决定，现将孙银山诉南京欧尚超市有限公司江宁店买卖合同纠纷案等四个案例（指导案例23-26号），作为第六批指导性案例发布，供在审判类似案件时参照。 |
| Supreme People's Court | | 最高人民法院 |
| January 26, 2014 | | 2014年1月26日 |
| Guiding Case No. 23 | | 指导案例23号 |
| Sun Yinshan v. Jiangning Store of Nanjing Auchan Supermarket Co., Ltd.(Sales contract dispute) | | 孙银山诉南京欧尚超市有限公司江宁店买卖合同纠纷案 |
| (Issued on January 26, 2014, as adopted by the Judicial Committee of the Supreme People's Court after deliberation) | | （最高人民法院审判委员会讨论通过 2014年1月26日发布） |
| Keywords | | 关键词 |
| Civil; sales contract; food safety; compensation of ten times the money paid | | 民事 买卖合同 食品安全 十倍赔偿 |
| Judgment's Key Points | | 裁判要点 |
| Where a consumer who has purchased food not up to the food safety standards claims that the seller or producer should compensate the consumer in the amount of ten times the money paid under the Food Safety Law or compensate the consumer according to other statutory compensation standards, the people's court should support such a claim whether the consumer knew that the food was not up to the safety standards at the time of purchase. | | 消费者购买到不符合食品安全标准的食品，要求销售者或者生产者依照食品安全法规定支付价款十倍赔偿金或者依照法律规定的其他赔偿标准赔偿的，不论其购买时是否明知食品不符合安全标准，人民法院都应予支持。 |
| Relevant Legal Provisions | | 相关法条 |
| Paragraph 2, Article 96 of the Food Safety Law of the People's Republic of China | | 《中华人民共和国食品安全法》第九十六条第二款 |
| Basic Facts | | 基本案情 |
| On May 1, 2012, plaintiff Sun Yinshan purchased 15 bags of “Yutu” sausages from defendant Jiangning Store of Nanjing Auchan Supermarket Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Auchan Supermarket Jiangning Store”), but the warranty period of 14 bags of them worth 558.6 yuan had expired. After payment to the cashier, Sun Yinshan went straight to the information desk to claim compensation. Sun Yishan filed a lawsuit in the court after negotiation failed, requiring Auchan Supermarket Jiangning Store to compensate him in the amount of 5,586 yuan, ten times the money paid for the 14 bags of sausages. | | 2012年5月1日，原告孙银山在被告南京欧尚超市有限公司江宁店（简称欧尚超市江宁店）购买“玉兔牌”香肠15包，其中价值558.6元的14包香肠已过保质期。孙银山到收银台结账后，即径直到服务台索赔，后因协商未果诉至法院，要求欧尚超市江宁店支付14包香肠售价十倍的赔偿金5586元。 |
| Judgment | | 裁判结果 |
| On September 10, 2012, the People's Court of Jiangning District, Nanjing City, Jiangsu Province issued a civil judgment (No. 646 [2012], First, Civil Division, Jiangning): Defendant Auchan Supermarket Jiangning Store should compensate plaintiff Sun Yinshan in the amount of 5,586 yuan within ten days from the effective date of this judgment. After the pronouncement of this judgment, neither of the parties appealed, and this judgment came into force. | | 江苏省南京市江宁区人民法院于2012年9月10日作出（2012）江宁开民初字第646号民事判决：被告欧尚超市江宁店于判决发生法律效力之日起10日内赔偿原告孙银山5586元。宣判后，双方当事人均未上诉，判决已发生法律效力。 |
| Judgment's Reasoning | | 裁判理由 |
| In the effective judgment, the court held that: As for whether plaintiff Sun Yinshan was a consumer, Article 2 of the Law of the People's Republic of China on the Protection of Consumer Rights and Interests provided that: “The rights and interests of consumers who purchase and use commodities or receive services for consumption needs in everyday life shall be protected by this Law; or, if this Law is silent, be protected by other applicable laws and regulations.” Consumer was a concept as opposed to seller and producer. Whoever purchased and used commodities or received services in market transactions for personal or household needs in everyday life rather than needs of business activities or occupational activities should be determined as a consumer “for consumption needs in everyday life” regulated by the law on the protection of consumer rights and interests. In this case, neither the plaintiff nor the defendant raised any objection to the fact that Sun Yinshan purchased sausages from Auchan Supermarket Jiangning Store. It may be determined that Sun Yinshan purchased commodities and did not resell, or use in any business, the purchased sausages. Auchan Supermarket Jiangning Store failed to provide evidence to prove that Sun Yinshan's purchase of commodities was for business purposes. Sun Yinshan claimed compensation on the ground that the purchased food was beyond the warranty period, which was the plaintiff's exercise of a statutory right. Therefore, it was groundless for Auchan Supermarket Jiangning Store to argue that Sun Yinshan was not a consumer because of the plaintiff's “intentional purchase of expired commodities for compensation.” | | 法院生效裁判认为：关于原告孙银山是否属于消费者的问题。《中华人民共和国消费者权益保护法》第二条规定：“消费者为生活消费需要购买、使用商品或者接受服务，其权益受本法保护；本法未作规定的，受其他有关法律、法规保护。”消费者是相对于销售者和生产者的概念。只要在市场交易中购买、使用商品或者接受服务是为了个人、家庭生活需要，而不是为了生产经营活动或者职业活动需要的，就应当认定为“为生活消费需要”的消费者，属于消费者权益保护法调整的范围。本案中，原、被告双方对孙银山从欧尚超市江宁店购买香肠这一事实不持异议，据此可以认定孙银山实施了购买商品的行为，且孙银山并未将所购香肠用于再次销售经营，欧尚超市江宁店也未提供证据证明其购买商品是为了生产经营。孙银山因购买到超过保质期的食品而索赔，属于行使法定权利。因此欧尚超市江宁店认为孙银山“买假索赔”不是消费者的抗辩理由不能成立。 |
| As for whether defendant Auchan Supermarket Jiangning Store knowingly sold food not up to the food safety standards, Article 3 of the Food Safety Law of the People's Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as the “Food Safety Law”) provided that: “Food producers and traders shall, in accordance with laws, regulations, and food safety standards, conduct food production and trade activities, be responsible to the society and the general public, ensure food safety, accept social supervision, and assume social responsibilities.” According to item (8), Article 28 of this Law, food with an expired warranty period was food prohibited in production and trade. Food sellers had the statutory obligation to ensure food safety, and should sort out food not up to the safety standards in a timely manner. As a food seller, Auchan Supermarket Jiangning Store should store food according to the requirements for ensuring food safety, check the food to be sold in a timely manner, and sort out food with an expired warranty period. Auchan Supermarket Jiangning Store put “Yutu” sausages with an expired warranty period on the shelf, sold them, and, therefore, failed to fulfill its statutory obligation. It may be determined that Auchan Supermarket Jiangning Store knowingly sold food not up to the food safety standards. | | 关于被告欧尚超市江宁店是否属于销售明知是不符合食品安全标准食品的问题。《中华人民共和国食品安全法》（以下简称《食品安全法》）第三条规定：“食品生产经营者应当依照法律、法规和食品安全标准从事生产经营活动，对社会和公众负责，保证食品安全，接受社会监督，承担社会责任。”该法第二十八条第（八）项规定，超过保质期的食品属于禁止生产经营的食品。食品销售者负有保证食品安全的法定义务，应当对不符合安全标准的食品自行及时清理。欧尚超市江宁店作为食品销售者，应当按照保障食品安全的要求储存食品，及时检查待售食品，清理超过保质期的食品，但欧尚超市江宁店仍然摆放并销售货架上超过保质期的“玉兔牌”香肠，未履行法定义务，可以认定为销售明知是不符合食品安全标准的食品。 |
| As for the liabilities of defendant Auchan Supermarket Jiangning Store, paragraph 1, Article 96 of the Food Safety Law provided that: “Whoever violates this Law, causing any personal, property, or other damage, shall assume compensatory liability in accordance with the law.” Paragraph 2 thereof provided that: “In addition to claiming damages, a consumer may require the producer or the seller to compensate the consumer in the amount of ten times the money paid, if food not up to the food safety standards is produced or knowingly sold.” Where a seller knowingly sold food not up to the safety standards, a consumer may claim both damages and compensation of ten times the money paid, or only claim compensation of ten times the money paid. In this case, plaintiff Sun Yinshan only required Auchan Supermarket Jiangning Store to pay compensation of ten times the money paid, which was the result of the party's exercise of discretion regarding the party's rights and should be supported. Defendant Auchan Supermarket Jiangning Store argued that the plaintiff knowingly purchased expired food in the hope of benefiting from the defendant's errors and the compensation of ten times the money paid should not be granted. Since a consumer was entitled to compensation of ten times the money paid according to the above-mentioned legal provisions, the benefit obtained through the compensation was an interest protected by law. The law did not put any limitation on the shopping motive of a consumer. Therefore, this argument of the defendant should not be supported. | | 关于被告欧尚超市江宁店的责任承担问题。《食品安全法》第九十六条第一款规定：“违反本法规定，造成人身、财产或者其他损害的，依法承担赔偿责任。”第二款规定：“生产不符合食品安全标准的食品或者销售明知是不符合食品安全标准的食品，消费者除要求赔偿损失外，还可以向生产者或者销售者要求支付价款十倍的赔偿金。”当销售者销售明知是不符合安全标准的食品时，消费者可以同时主张赔偿损失和支付价款十倍的赔偿金，也可以只主张支付价款十倍的赔偿金。本案中，原告孙银山仅要求欧尚超市江宁店支付售价十倍的赔偿金，属于当事人自行处分权利的行为，应予支持。关于被告欧尚超市江宁店提出原告明知食品过期而购买，希望利用其错误谋求利益，不应予以十倍赔偿的主张，因前述法律规定消费者有权获得支付价款十倍的赔偿金，因该赔偿获得的利益属于法律应当保护的利益，且法律并未对消费者的主观购物动机作出限制性规定，故对其该项主张不予支持。 |
| Guiding Case No. 24 | | 指导案例24号 |
| Rong Baoying v. Wang Yang and Jiangyin Branch of Altrust Property Insurance Company Ltd.(Motor vehicle traffic accident liability dispute) | | 荣宝英诉王阳、永诚财产保险股份有限公司江阴支公司机动车交通事故责任纠纷案 |
| (Issued on January 26, 2014, as adopted by the Judicial Committee of the Supreme People's Court after deliberation) | | （最高人民法院审判委员会讨论通过 2014年1月26日发布） |
| Keywords | | 关键词 |
| Civil; traffic accident; fault liability | | 民事 交通事故 过错责任 |
| Judgment's Key Points | | 裁判要点 |
| Where a victim in a traffic accident is not at fault for the accident, the effect of the victim's physical condition on the harm resulting from the accident is not a statutory mitigating circumstance for the liability of the tortfeasor. | | 交通事故的受害人没有过错，其体质状况对损害后果的影响不属于可以减轻侵权人责任的法定情形。 |
| Relevant Legal Provisions | | 相关法条 |
| Article 26 of the Tort Law of the People's Republic of China | | 《中华人民共和国侵权责任法 |
| Item (2), paragraph 1, Article 76 of the Road Traffic Safety Law of the People's Republic of China | | 《中华人民共和国道路交通安全法》第七十六条第一款第（二）项 |
| Basic Facts | | 基本案情 |
| Plaintiff Rong Baoying alleged that: The plaintiff was hit by a car driven by defendant Wang Yang and was injured in the accident. It was determined by the Binhu Unit, Traffic Patrol Police Detachment, Public Security Bureau of Wuxi City, Jiangsu Province (hereinafter referred to as "Binhu Traffic Police Unit") that Wang Yang should be solely liable for the accident and Rong Baoying was not at fault for the accident. The plaintiff required that the following two defendants compensate him for medical expenses of 30,006 yuan, hospitalization food subsidy of 414 yuan, nutrition fee of 1,620 yuan, disability compensation of 27,658.05 yuan, nursing fee of 6,000 yuan, travel expenses of 800 yuan, and damages for mental distress of 10,500 yuan and assume all the litigation and identification fees in this case. | | 原告荣宝英诉称：被告王阳驾驶轿车与其发生刮擦，致其受伤。该事故经江苏省无锡市公安局交通巡逻警察支队滨湖大队（简称滨湖交警大队）认定：王阳负事故的全部责任，荣宝英无责。原告要求下述两被告赔偿医疗费用30006元、住院伙食补助费414元、营养费1620元、残疾赔偿金27658.05元、护理费6000元、交通费800元、精神损害抚慰金10500元，并承担本案诉讼费用及鉴定费用。 |
| Defendant Jiangyin Branch of Altrust Property Insurance Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Altrust Insurance Company”) argued that: It raised no objection to the process of the accident and the liability determination, and was willing to make compensation within the extent of the mandatory traffic accident liability insurance; it raised no objection to the medical expenses of 30,006 yuan and the hospitalization food subsidy of 414 yuan; because it was stated in the conclusion of the identification report that “the degree of injury attributable to the accident was 75%, and 25% was attributed to the personal physical factors,” the disability compensation should be determined by multiplying the claimed amount by the coefficient of 0.75, i.e. 20,743.54 yuan; it agreed to the nutrition fee of 1,350 yuan, nursing fee of 3,300 yuan, and travel expenses of 400 yuan, but should not assume the identification fee. | | 被告永诚财产保险股份有限公司江阴支公司（简称永诚保险公司）辩称：对于事故经过及责任认定没有异议，其愿意在交强险限额范围内予以赔偿；对于医疗费用30006元、住院伙食补助费414元没有异议；因鉴定意见结论中载明“损伤参与度评定为75%，其个人体质的因素占25%”，故确定残疾赔偿金应当乘以损伤参与度系数0.75，认可20743.54元；对于营养费认可1350元，护理费认可3300元，交通费认可400元，鉴定费用不予承担。 |
| Defendant Wang Yang argued that: He raised no objection to the process of the accident and the liability determination. Altrust Insurance Company should first compensate the plaintiff for losses within the extent of the mandatory traffic accident liability insurance. He requested the court to rule on the identification fee in accordance with the law, and agreed with Altrust Insurance Company on other expenses. He had paid 20,000 yuan to the plaintiff as compensation. | | 被告王阳辩称：对于事故经过及责任认定没有异议，原告的损失应当由永诚保险公司在交强险限额范围内优先予以赔偿；鉴定费用请求法院依法判决，其余各项费用同意保险公司意见；其已向原告赔偿20000元。 |
At trial, the court found that: Around 14:45 on February 10, 2012, Wang Yang drove a car with the plate number of Su MT1888 from north to south along Lihu Avenue, Binhu District, Wuxi City, Jiangsu Province, and hit pedestrian Rong Baoying in the crosswalk at the crossing of Lihu Avenue and Datong Road, and Rong Baoying was injured in the accident. On February 11, the Binhu Traffic Police Unit issued a written Conclusion on Road Traffic Accident, determining that Wang Yang should be solely liable and Rong Baoying was not at fault for the accident. On the day of the accident, Rong Baoying was immediately sent to the hospital for treatment, and of the medical expenses of 30,006 yuan, 20,000 yuan was advanced by Wang Yang. During the period of treatment and rehabilitation, Rong Baoying hired a housekeeper with a monthly pay of 2,200 yuan. The car with the plate number of Su MT1888 was covered by the mandatory motor vehicle traffic accident liability insurance underwritten by Altrust Insurance Company from 00:00 on August 17, 2011, to 24:00 on August 16, 2012. Both the plaintiff and the defendants confirmed the medical expenses of 30,006 yuan, the hospitalization food subsidy of 414 yuan, and the damages for mental distress of 10,500 yuan.
．．．．．． | | 法院经审理查明：2012年2月10日14时45分许，王阳驾驶号牌为苏MT1888的轿车，沿江苏省无锡市滨湖区蠡湖大道由北往南行驶至蠡湖大道大通路口人行横道线时，碰擦行人荣宝英致其受伤。2月11日，滨湖交警大队作出《道路交通事故认定书》，认定王阳负事故的全部责任，荣宝英无责。事故发生当天，荣宝英即被送往医院治疗，发生医疗费用30006元，王阳垫付20000元。荣宝英治疗恢复期间，以每月2200元聘请一名家政服务人员。号牌苏MT1888轿车在永诚保险公司投保了机动车交通事故责任强制保险，保险期间为2011年8月17日0时起至2012年8月16日24时止。原、被告一致确认荣宝英的医疗费用为30006元、住院伙食补助费为414元、精神损害抚慰金为10500元。
．．．．．． |
|
Dear visitor, as a premium member of this database, you will get complete access to all content.Please go premium and get more.
1. To become a premium member, please call 400-810-8266 Ext. 171.
2. Binding to the account with access to this database.
3. Apply for a trial account.
4. To get instant access to a document, you can Pay Amount 【￥800.00】 for your single purchase. | |
您好：您现在要进入的是北大法宝英文库会员专区。
如您是我们英文用户可直接 登录，进入会员专区查询您所需要的信息；如您还不是我们 的英文用户；您可通过网上支付进行单篇购买，支付成功后即可立即查看本篇内容。
Tel: +86 (10) 82689699, +86 (10) 82668266 ext. 153
Mobile: +86 13311570713
Fax: +86 (10) 82668268
E-mail:info@chinalawinfo.com
|
| | | |
| | | |