今年1月，在新疆奎屯市一家美发屋内，顾客滕某因脑动脉瘤破裂伴蛛网膜下腔出血不幸离世 1。死者家属随后起诉店家，要求赔偿46万余元 1。家属主张店家存在过错，理由包括未等顾客适应温差即安排洗头、对顾客不适反应未及时理会，以及采用掐人中等方式施救不当 1。
一审法院判决驳回家属全部诉讼请求，二审法院驳回上诉，维持原判 1。法院判决明确引用《中华人民共和国民法典》第一百八十四条，即俗称的“好人条款”，指出自愿实施紧急救助造成受助人损害的，救助人不承担民事责任 1。该判决明确了经营者的安全保障义务是合理限度内的有限义务，而非无限责任，旨在保护善意施救行为，消除公众对于“救人反被讹”的顾虑 1。
In a ruling reinforcing legal protection for voluntary emergency rescuers, courts in Xinjiang dismissed a lawsuit seeking over 460,000 yuan in compensation from a hair salon owner and staff after a customer died of a sudden medical emergency. 1 The incident occurred in January at a hair salon in Kuytun City, where a customer named Teng suffered a rupture of a cerebral aneurysm accompanied by subarachnoid hemorrhage, leading to their death. 1 Both the first-instance court and the appellate court ruled that the salon’s employees were not liable for civil damages, upholding the principle that those who voluntarily perform emergency assistance are protected from liability if harm results to the person being rescued. 1
The family of the deceased argued that the salon bore responsibility for failing to allow the customer time to adjust to temperature changes before washing their hair, for ignoring signs of discomfort, and for administering incorrect first aid by pressing on the philtrum. 1 However, the courts relied on Article 184 of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China, widely known as the "Good Samaritan" clause, which stipulates that rescuers are exempt from civil liability for damage caused during voluntary emergency assistance. 1 This judgment clarifies that the safety obligations of business operators are limited to a reasonable scope rather than being infinite, aiming to protect acts of goodwill and alleviate public fears about being sued for attempting to save lives. 1
评论
还没有评论，欢迎留下第一条。