>>>welcome visitor, haven't logged in. Login
Subscribe Now Contact us  
Font Size:  A A A Search “Fabao” Window English 中文 = 简体  繁体
  Favorite   DownLoad   Print
 
Wang Liyi and Zhang Lixia v. Shanghai Galaxy Hotel (Dispute over Compensation)
王利毅、张丽霞诉上海银河宾馆赔偿纠纷案
【法宝引证码】

Wang Liyi and Zhang Lixia v. Shanghai Galaxy Hotel (Dispute over Compensation)
(Dispute over Compensation)
王利毅、张丽霞诉上海银河宾馆赔偿纠纷案

Wang Liyi and Zhang Lixia v. Shanghai Galaxy Hotel
(Dispute over Compensation)@#
BASIC FACTS@#
Plaintiffs: Wang Liyi, male, 53, an employee from Shekou Sub-branch, Shenzhen Branch, Bank of China, he was domiciled in Shenzhen City, Guangdong Province;@#
Zhang Lixia, female, 50, an employee from Shenzhen City Hanshi Industrial Co., Ltd., her domicile is the same place as the above.@#
Represented by: Tao Wuping and Wang Rong, lawyers from Shanghai Shenda Law Firm.@#
Defendant: Shanghai Galaxy Hotel, its domicile is No. 888 Zhongshan West Road, Shanghai.@#
Legal representative: Zhao Renrong, general manager of the Hotel.@#
Represented by: Guo Li, male, 50, a cadre from the Committee of Changning District, Shanghai Municipality of CPPCC;@#
Guo Jie, a lawyer from Shanghai Xinhua Law Firm.@#
The plaintiffs, Wang Liyi and Zhang Lixia (hereinafter referred to as “Zhang”), filed a claim at the People's Court of Changning District, Shanghai Municipality (hereinafter referred to as “Changning Court”) against Shanghai Galaxy Hotel (hereinafter referred to as “Galaxy”), the defendant, concerning their dispute over compensation.@#
Wang Liyi and Zhang claimed: Galaxy's television monitoring and control system was existing in name only, and its security employees and inspectors seriously neglected their duties. A criminal stayed in the hotel for three hours, but there was no one to check his certificates or register his visit according to the rules of the Hotel, and the criminal's acts were not at all noticed. Since Galaxy was not conscientious for the security of the Hotel, Wang Han, their daughter, was murdered and robbed of her properties by the criminal during her accommodation in the Hotel. There was causality between Wang Han's being murdered and Galaxy's faults, thus Galaxy should bear the compensation liability for its tort. In addition, Galaxy also promised its guests that it would provide “24 hours of security inspection to guarantee your personal safety”, and said it would bear the liabilities including compensation liability, if its services did not conform to its promises. Moreover, it is also provided in “Law of the People's Republic of China on the Protection of Consumer Rights and Interests” that a consumer may demand the service provider for compensation if his legitimate rights and interests have been damaged when he is receiving the services. Therefore, Wang Liyi and Zhang held that, Galaxy should bear the compensation liability for tort, and the legal liability for breach of contract in accordance with “Contract Law of the People's Republic of China”, and the liability for infringing upon the consumer rights and interests in accordance with the Law on the Protection of Consumer Rights and Interests. Wang Liyi and Zhang requested Changning Court to rule that Galaxy acknowledge its faults and apologize to them, and also compensate the plaintiffs 798,860 Yuan for the economic losses (including 28,300 Yuan of properties robbed of Wang Han, 231,793 Yuan of funeral expenses, 95,967 Yuan of expenses for trip and accommodation, and 44,2800 Yuan of education and rearing expenses), as well as 500,000 Yuan of mental losses.@#
Wang Liyi and Zhang submitted the following evidence:@#
1. an invitation to conference sent by China Medicine (Group) Shanghai Company and a certificate issued by the new and special medicine department of this company, which could prove that Wang Han checked in at Galaxy, and she came to Shanghai on business to attend a fair;@#
......

 

王利毅、张丽霞诉上海银河宾馆赔偿纠纷案@#
@#
原告:王利毅,男,53岁,中国银行深圳分行蛇口支行职工,住广东省深圳市。@#
原告:张丽霞,女,50岁,深圳市瀚适实业有限公司职工,住址同上。@#
二原告委托代理人:陶武平、王嵘,上海市申达律师事务所律师。@#
被告:上海银河宾馆,住所地:上海市中山西路888号。@#
法定代表人:赵仁荣,该宾馆总经理。@#
委托代理人:郭立,男,50岁,政协上海市长宁区委员会干部。@#
委托代理人:郭杰,上海市新华律师事务所律师。@#
原告王利毅、张丽霞因与被告上海银河宾馆发生赔偿纠纷,向上海市长宁区人民法院提起诉讼。@#
原告诉称:被告的宾馆电视监控系统形同虚设,保安和安全巡检人员严重失职,犯罪分子在该宾馆内逗留长达三个小时,都无人查验其证件和按照规定进行访客登记,以至对犯罪分子的行为毫无察觉。由于被告对宾馆的安全不负责任,致使二原告的女儿王翰在入住宾馆期间被犯罪分子杀害,财物被劫。王翰的遇害与被告的过错有因果关系,被告应当承担侵权赔偿责任。另外,被告对入住其宾馆的旅客有“24小时的保安巡视,确保您的人身安全”的承诺,还说如果服务不符承诺内容,原承担包括赔偿在内的责任。《中华人民共和国消费者权益保护法》也规定:“消费者在接受服务时,其合法权益受到损害的,可以向服务者要求赔偿”。据此原告认为,被告在承担侵权赔偿责任的同时,还应当依照《中华人民共和国合同法》和消费者权益保护汉的规定,承担违约和侵害赔偿者权益的法律责任。请求判令被告向原告承认错误、赔礼道歉,给原告赔偿经济损失798860元(其中包括王翰被抢劫财物损失28300元,丧葬费用231793元,差旅、住宿费95967元,教育、抚养费442800元),赔偿精神损失费50万元。@#
原告提交了以下证据:@#
1、中国医药(集团)上海公司发出的会议邀请书及该公司新特药业务部的证明,证明被害人王翰是因公出差来沪参加交流会时入住银河宾馆。@#
2、上海市公安局长宁区分局的《紧急协查》通知、上海市公安局《重要寻人启事》、《新民晚报》悬赏消息、上海市公安局《尸体检验报告》、上海市公安局长宁区分局关于王翰被害结论及遗体处理意见、公安机关为破案印刷的照片资料,证明王翰在入住银河宾馆期间被害。@#
3、被告给住店旅客的公开函、《银河宾馆质量承诺细则》,证明被告的承诺内容。@#
4、上海华亭集团《饭店管理模式》及银河宾馆《内保岗位作业》、《安全监视中心岗位作业》指导书,证明被告的安全保卫人员岗位职责。@#
5、公安部、国家旅游局1993年颁布的《关于加强旅游涉外饭店安全管理严防恶性案件发生的通知》,证明有关部门三令五申要求加强涉外饭店安全管理。@#
6、《上海市旅游业治安管理实施细则》和《上海市特种行业和公共场所治安管理条例》,证明上海市政府明文规定旅馆应建立住宿、访客登记制度,应实行24小时值班制度,并要有专人巡查。@#
7、经济损失清单和相关凭证。@#
被告辩称:被告与王翰之间存在着以租赁客房为主和提供相应服务为辅的合同关系;宾馆内部的各项管理规章制度关非该合同条款;宾馆对旅客所作的服务质量承诺,只是相对出租的客房和提供的服务而言。被告已按约履行了出租客房和提供相应服务的义务,并未违约。被告是有影响的涉外宾馆,内部有着必要的、规范的各项规章制度及相应设施,不存在对犯罪分子作案有利的客观条件。王翰遇害及其财物被劫,是犯罪分子所为,与被告的管理没有因果关系。被告对王翰既未侵权,也不违约,故应当驳回原告的诉讼请求。@#
被告提交了以下证据:@#
1、宾馆保卫部、巡检员、监视员、治安管理人员、安全监视机房、总台、楼面服务员的安全规章制度,以及会客单、访客登记等制度,证明被告有宾馆安全管理规范。@#
2、上海市建设委员会作出的《关于银河宾馆监视电视系统的验收意见》、上海市公安局长宁区分局关于同意银河宾馆安检系统扩改建方案的批文、上海市华亭(集团)公司《关于银河宾馆扩建改造安全监控系统请示的批复》、银河宾馆安检系统扩建改造竣工书等,证明被告的电视安全监控系统符合治安要求。@#
3、陆纪新、曹兴贵、金国震、何为公、刘枫的证词以及27个电视监控屏幕的显示图等,证明发宁时间的4860分钟录像带里,记录了进出大门1200人次,进出客梯800人次,不存在失去监控的现象。@#
4、向陆纪新、胡剑杰、叶琼的调查笔录,证明保安人员明确自己的岗位责任,在1998年8月23日履行巡视职责期间,未发现异常现象。@#
5、公安部发布的《旅馆业治安管理办法》、《上海市特种行业和公共场所治安管理条例》等,证明宾馆访客登记制度并非法律、法规的强制性规定。@#
6、客房门照片、张贴于客房内的安全提示以及上海市公安局长宁区分局的现场勘查笔录等,证明宾馆的客房门设施完好,当犯罪分子按门铃时,被害人未使用安全装置随意开门,致使犯罪分子强行入室作案得逞。@#
经庭审质证,被告除认为原告提交的经济损失清单和相关凭证在范围与计算标准上缺乏依据外,对原告提交的其他证据无异议。原告认为被告提交其工作人员的证言不可采信,对被告提交的其他证据无异议。@#
上海市长宁区人民法院经审查查明:1998年8月23日,原告王利毅、张丽霞之女王翰为参加药品交流会来沪,入住被告的银河宾馆。下午2时40分左右,王翰经宾馆服务总台登记后,由服务员领入1911客房,下午4时40分左右在该客房被犯罪分子仝瑞宝(已被判死刑并执行)杀害,随身携带的人民币2.3万余元、港币20元和价值人民币7140元的欧米茄牌手表一块被劫走。事后查明,仝瑞宝于当日下午2时零2分进入宾馆伺机作案,在按1911客房门铃待王翰开门后,即强行入室将其杀害并抢劫财物,下午4时52分离开宾馆。期间,银河宾馆未对其作访客登记,且对其行踪也未能引起注意。@#
被告银河宾馆是四星级涉外宾馆,内部有规范的管理制度,并安装着安全监控设施。银河宾馆制订的《银河宾馆质量承诺细则》置放于客房内,并于1998年8月19日起实施。该细则中有“24小时的保安巡视,确保您的人身安全”、“若有不符合上述承诺内容,我们将立即改进并向您赔礼道歉,或奉送水果、费用打折、部分免费,直至赔偿”等内容。@#
原告王利毅、张丽霞在女儿王翰遇害后,精神受到打击,并为料理丧事多次来沪,经济受到一定损失。审理中,被告银河宾馆曾表示,尽管银河宾馆对王翰的遇害不负有赔偿责任,但考虑到王翰的遇害给王利毅、张丽霞造成精神上的痛苦和经济上的损失,愿意在经济上给予一定补偿。由于王利毅、张丽霞不能接受银河宾馆的这一意见,致调解不成。@#
@#
上海市长宁区人民法院认为:@#
原告王利毅、张丽霞之女王翰虽在入住被告银河宾馆期间遇害致死,财物被劫,但王翰的死亡和财物被劫是犯罪仝瑞宝的加害行为所致,银河宾馆并非共同加害行为人。银河宾馆在管理工作中的过失,同王翰的死亡与财物被劫没有法律上的因果关系。故王利毅、张丽霞以银河宾馆在管理工作中有过失为由,要求银河宾馆承担侵权赔偿责任,没有法律依据,不予支持。@#
中华人民共和国民法通则》第八十五条规定:“合同是当事人之间设立、变更、终止民事关系的协议。依法成立的合同,受法律保护。”王翰生前入住被告银河宾馆,其与银河宾馆之间建立的是合同法律关系,应适用合同法律进行调整,不能适用消费者权益保护法民法通则一百零六条第一款规定:“公民、法人违反合同或者不履行其他义务的,应当承担民事责任。”第一百一十一条规定:“当事人一方不履行合同义务或者履行合同义务不符合约定条件的,另一方有权要求履行或者采取补救措施,并有权要求赔偿损失。”银河宾馆既然基于对宾馆的管理以及对入住宾馆客人的优质服务而作出“24小时的保安巡视,确保您的人身安全”的服务质量承诺,则应予以兑现,现未能兑现承诺,则应承担违约责任。考虑到银河宾馆在提供服务过程中虽有一定的违约过失,但王翰之死及财物被劫毕竟是罪犯仝瑞宝所为,故违约赔偿的数额应当参照本案的实际情况酌情而定。据此判决:@#
......


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
     
     
Scan QR Code and Read on Mobile
【法宝引证码】        北大法宝en.pkulaw.cn
Message: Please kindly comment on the present translation.
 
Confirmation Code:
Click image to reset code
 
  Translations are by lawinfochina.com, and we retain exclusive copyright over content found on our website except for content we publish as authorized by respective copyright owners or content that is publicly available from government sources.

Due to differences in language, legal systems, and culture, English translations of Chinese law are for reference purposes only. Please use the official Chinese-language versions as the final authority. Lawinfochina.com and its staff will not be directly or indirectly liable for use of materials found on this website.

We welcome your comments and suggestions, which assist us in continuing to improve the quality of our materials as we dynamically expand content.
 
Home | About us | Disclaimer | Chinese