>>>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 Linxiang and Chen Weidong v. Xiongdu Travel Agency (Case of Disputes over Travel Contract)
王林祥、陈卫东诉雄都旅行社旅游合同纠纷案
【法宝引证码】

Wang Linxiang and Chen Weidong v. Xiongdu Travel Agency (Case of Disputes over Travel Contract)
(Case of Disputes over Travel Contract)
王林祥、陈卫东诉雄都旅行社旅游合同纠纷案

Wang Linxiang and Chen Weidong v. Xiongdu Travel Agency
(Case of Disputes over Travel Contract)

 

王林祥、陈卫东诉雄都旅行社旅游合同纠纷案

BASIC FACTS 
Plaintiff: Wang Linxiang, male, 43 years old, teacher at the Adult School of Jiangdu City, Jiangsu Province, domiciled at Jiangdu Town, Jiangdu City 原告:王林祥,男,43岁,江苏省江都市成人学校教师,住江都市江都镇。
Plaintiff: Chen Weidong, female, 37 years old, employee of the Telecom Bureau of Jiangdu City, Jiangsu Province, wife of Wang Linxiang 原告:陈卫东,女,37岁,江苏省江都市电信局职工,系原告王林祥之妻。
Authorized agents of the 2 Plaintiffs: Guo Jianming, Chen Jianhua, lawyers from Qingtian Law Firm of Yangzhou City, Jiangsu Province 二原告委托代理人:郭建明、陈进华,江苏省扬州擎天律师事务所律师。
Defendant: Xiongdu Travel Agency of Yangzhou City, Jiangsu Province Address: Jiangdu Town, Jiangdu City 被告:江苏省扬州市雄都旅行社。住所地:江都市江都镇。
Legal Representative: Chen Yueyi, manager of this Travel Agency 法定代表人:陈跃一,该旅行社经理。
Authorized agent: Teng Meisen, Wang Dengshan, lawyers from Tianren Law Firm of Yangzhou City, Jiangsu Province 委托代理人:滕梅森、王登山,江苏省扬州天任律师事务所律师。
Plaintiffs Wang Linxiang and Chen Weidong lodged a lawsuit in the Intermediary People's Court of Yangzhou City of Jiangsu Province because of the disputes between them and Xiongdu Travel Agency of Yangzhou City, Jiangsu Province (hereinafter referred to as Xiongdu) over a travel contract. 原告王林祥、陈卫东因与被告江苏省扬州市雄都旅行社(以下简称雄都社)发生旅游合同纠纷,向江苏省扬州市中级人民法院提起诉讼。
The two plaintiffs claimed that the defendant's failure to perform the obligation of safety notification resulted in the death of Wang Cheng, the plaintiffs' son, during the course of playing in the seaside bathing place. Because the defendant failed to buy a 300, 000 yuan travel accident insurance as required for each person prior to the departure, the plaintiffs were unable to obtain any compensation from any insurance company after the fatal accident of Wang Cheng. They pleaded the court to order the defendant to compensate them 300, 000 yuan for the amount that should have been insured, and 200, 000 yuan for mental sufferings and personal injury. 二原告诉称:被告在组织旅游中不履行安全告知义务,以致原告之子王呈在海滨浴场玩耍时死亡。被告还没有按规定在出发前为旅游者办理每人30万元的旅游意外保险,以致王呈死亡的事故发生后,原告不能获得保险公司理赔。请求判令被告给付原告30万元保险金额的损失,给原告赔偿精神抚慰金、人身损害赔偿金20万元。
The defendant argued that Wang Linxiang and his son, Wang Cheng, went to the seaside bathing place to swim, which was not a travel program arranged by the defendant, nor was it within the time arranged by the defendant. After the death of Wang Cheng, the plaintiffs had acquired compensations from the accident entity of the seaside bathing place. Wang Cheng's death had nothing to do with the defendant, so the defendant was not liable for it. According to the applicable terms and conditions of Jiangsu Branch of China People's Life Insurance Company for travel accident insurance, Wang Cheng was under the age of 16, he was not allowed to buy insurance. In addition, the travel fees paid by Wang Linxiang did not include the insurance premiums for Wang Cheng and other several children. That the plaintiffs pleaded the defendant to bear the compensation liability lacked legal basis, their litigation pleading should be dismissed. 被告辩称:原告王林祥和其子王呈去海滨浴场游泳,既不是被告安排的旅游项目,也不在被告安排的时间内。王呈死亡后,原告已从事故单位海滨浴场获得赔偿。王呈死亡与被告无关,不能由被告承担责任。按照中国人寿保险公司江苏分公司的旅游意外保险适用条款,王呈不满16周岁,不能参加保险;而且王林祥交纳的旅游费用中,也不包含连王呈在内几名小孩的保险费。原告要求被告承担赔偿责任,缺乏法律依据,应当驳回其诉讼请求。
...... 扬州市中级人民法院经审理查明:
 1999年8月2日,原告王林祥到被告雄都社联系外出旅游事宜。根据雄都社提供的旅游行程分解表,双方口头达成了8月3日至7日游览普陀山等地的旅游合同,王林祥预付了10个人的旅游费7000元。旅游行程分解表中注明,旅游价格包含了人身保险费。
 8月3日上午,被告雄都社组织包括原告王林祥等10人在内的旅游团出发。8月5日晚,该旅游团在普陀山下的一个饭店住宿后,原告王林祥及其子王呈(14岁)与其他人等到距饭店不远的普陀山海滨浴场游玩。18时30分左右,王呈因不慎被海浪卷走,直至同月9日尸体才被发现。为此,海滨浴场给王林祥赔偿了浴场门票保险金额5万元和其他费用3万元。
 原告王林祥回江都后,在处理王呈的善后事宜时发现,被告雄都社在旅游团出发前并未给王呈投保,而是事后补办的投保手续,保险公司拒绝给王林祥理赔。为此,王林祥与雄都社发生纠纷。
 另查明:1999年8月6日,被告雄都社在中国人寿保险公司江都支公司为王呈等9人办理了旅游意外保险。保险单注明:被保险人数为9人,保险项目为意外伤害,保险费9人合计为108元,保险金额合计为270万元,保险期间为3天。
 以上事实,有双方当事人的陈述,庭审笔录,雄都社旅游行程分解表,雄都社收取王林祥交纳的旅游预付款凭证,同行旅游的陈小祥、滕家明、黄益林、徐萍等证人的证词,雄都社与中国人寿保险公司江都市支公司于1999年8月6日订立的旅游(团体)意外保险合同抄件,国务院发布的《旅行社管理条例》,国家旅游局颁布的《旅行社办理旅游意外保险暂行规定》,中国人寿保险公司江苏分公司苏保寿发(1999)119号和52号文件,王呈的户籍证明,普陀山海滨浴场门票以及舟山市公安局普陀山分局关于王呈失踪及尸体发现过程的情况说明,海滨浴场向王林祥支付门票保险金额5万元和赔偿金3万元的凭证等证据证明。所有证据经质证,可以作为认定事实的根据。
 
 扬州市中级人民法院认为:
 中华人民共和国民法通则》(以下简称民法通则)第五十六条规定:“民事法律行为可以采取书面形式、口头形式或者其他形式。法律规定用特定形式的,应当依照法律规定。”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。”原告王林祥为外出旅游到被告雄都社处,根据雄都社提供的旅游行程分解表,双方就旅游的期限、目的地、人数、待遇等达成一致的意思表示,这一口头合同成立。法律有关国内旅游方面的规定,以及雄都社的旅游行程分解表内容,是这一口头合同中双方权利义务的书面依据。
 国务院于1996年10月15日发布实施的《旅行社管理条例》(以下简称管理条例)第二十二条规定:“旅行社组织旅游,应当为旅游者办理旅游意外保险,并保证所提供的服务符合保障旅游者人身、财物安全的要求;对可能危及旅游者人身、财物安全的事宜,应当向旅游者作出真实的说明和明确的警示,并采取防止危害发生的措施。”从此条规定看,办理旅游意外保险,保证旅游者人身、财物的安全,提示安全注意事项,防止危害发生,是旅行社在旅游合同中必须承担的法定义务。民法通则八十八条第一款规定:“合同的当事人应当按照合同的约定,全部履行自己的义务。”原告王林祥履行了预付费用的义务,被告雄都社履行了组团出游的义务,合同已经开始履行。无论从国务院的行政法规看,还是从雄都社的旅游行程分解表看,雄都社都应当在旅游出发前给旅游者办理旅游意外保险。办理保险的费用,已经包含在旅游者交纳的旅游费用中。雄都社没有按时履行此项义务,而是在王呈死亡事故发生后补办,是违约行为。
 ......

Dear visitor, you are attempting to view a subscription-based section of lawinfochina.com. If you are already a subscriber, please login to enjoy access to our databases. If you are not a subscriber, you can pay for a document through Online Pay and read it immediately after payment.
An entity user can apply for a trial account or contact us for your purchase.
Tel: +86 (10) 82689699, +86 (10) 82668266 ext. 153
Mobile: +86 13311570712
Fax: +86 (10) 82668268
E-mail: database@chinalawinfo.com

 
您好:您现在要进入的是北大法律英文网会员专区。
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;
单位用户可申请试用或者来电咨询购买。
Tel: +86 (10) 82689699, +86 (10) 82668266 ext. 153
Mobile: +86 13311570712
Fax: +86 (10) 82668268
E-mail:database@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