"Second, in terms of subjective fault, the defendant is not at fault for Xiao Ming's death, and this case is a general tort dispute, not a special tort, and there are no special provisions, so the principle of no-fault liability does not apply, and the principle of fault applies, that is, we often say that whoever asserts shall bear the burden of proof."

"However, in the evidence submitted by the plaintiff, we did not find any relevant supporting materials, and the plaintiff did not provide clear evidence."

"In addition, in this case, the defendant has actively fulfilled a notification and security obligation that it should undertake, and the registration agreement clearly stipulates that those under the age of 12 are not allowed to ride on the road, and secondly, the resident's ID card needs to be submitted for authentication at the time of registration, and those under the age of 12 will not pass the review."

"In addition, Xiao Ming used the bicycle in violation of regulations in the process of using the bicycle in question, so the defendant has fulfilled his duty of reasonable notification, and we believe that he is not at fault."

"Third, at the level of causation, there is no causal link between the result of the plaintiff's death and the defendant's conduct."

"In the road traffic accident certificate submitted by both of us, it has been made clear that in this accident, it was Lao Li's negligence and Xiao Ming's violations that caused the accident, and the responsibility was determined very clearly."

"Therefore, Xiao Ming's death was caused by the above two reasons, and has nothing to do with the defendant."

"Second, there is no substantial causal relationship between the defendant's conduct and the result of the damage."

"To give you a simple example, for example, if someone picks up a pair of scissors and uses the scissors to cause personal injury to others, we will not go back to hold the person who lost the scissors responsible, because under normal circumstances, we do not think that a lost pair of scissors will inevitably cause personal injury to others."

"Similarly, in this case, there is no legal equivalence of causation."

"Fourth, in terms of the result of damage, the pre-respondent of the result of the damage has nothing to do with it, and there is indeed a result of the damage of Xiao Ming's death in this case, but as mentioned above, the result has nothing to do with the defendant."

"In summary, the defendant does not constitute infringement, so it does not need to bear the liability for compensation stated by the plaintiff, and requests the collegial panel to order the dismissal of all the plaintiff's claims, thank you."

As soon as the defendant's defense ended, the audience was faintly boiling.

It's too strong.

Suddenly there was a feeling of a fairy fight.

Even Su Nan felt that the defendant's statement was reasonable and easy to understand, and Song Tingchuan and their side were afraid that it would not be easy.

The judge in court began to ask questions:

"There is a question for the plaintiff, is this joint and several liability or supplementary liability, or share compensation? Please be clear. ”

It was still Du Fei who took the microphone:

"We assert that the two defendants bear the proportional liability, of which the bike-sharing company occupies the main responsibility position and bears 60% of the compensation liability, while the logistics company where Lao Li works bears 40% of the compensation liability."

The judge nodded:

"Okay, now the court also wants you to make it a little clearer, what are your reasons, facts and reasons for holding these two defendants accountable?"

The sudden question made Du Fei panic all of a sudden, and Song Tingchuan moved the microphone in front of him at this time and said:

"When the victim, Xiao Ming, as a minor under the age of 12, rode on the shared bicycle provided by the defendant, Xiao Ming was already in a huge and real danger at this time, so we believe that the defendants jointly caused a result of the infringement in an indirect way."

The judge continued to ask:

"I would like to ask, do you have a factual description of the other party's fault in this tort?"

Song Tingchuan helped the glasses on the bridge of his nose and said softly:

"To put it simply, we believe that due to the Law on the Protection of Minors and the Road Safety Regulations, they need to take the initiative to prohibit minors under the age of 12 from riding bicycles."

Judge:

"What do you think should be the way he forbids it?"

"From a negative perspective, the defendant failed to take sufficient measures to prevent illegal unlocking, and there was an act of harm."

Song Tingchuan's words fell, and the boy with white-rimmed glasses raised his hand again.

"Collegiate panel, because one of the plaintiff's claims is only now clear, can we make an on-site supplementary defense to the plaintiff's claim just now?"

The judge nodded, "Yes." ”

"Well, one of the core reasons given by the other party is that when the child is riding, he is put in a real danger."

"However, we all know that the defendant company involved in the case designed the combination lock for the purpose of protecting the company's property, and the difficulty of unlocking the lock will not affect the riding safety of the car itself, and we have made it clear in the traffic accident liability determination that the liability determination is very clear, so this causal relationship is not established."

"Secondly, the other party has been emphasizing that this lock is very easy for the three children to open, so I also hope that the plaintiff can give us evidence in the next link, and use actual evidence to prove that this lock was easily opened, okay, thank you collegial court."

At this point, the whole moot court opening defense session has ended, and in the second part, two-way questions.

The presiding judge opened his mouth:

"Do you have questions for each other? First of all, the plaintiff. ”

Because of Song Tingchuan's rescue, Du Fei's panic had calmed down, and he approached the microphone in front of him and said:

"As a technology company that operates a bike-sharing business, how much did the bike-sharing company put into the magic capital where Xiao Ming is located this year?"

This question stunned the other party's white-rimmed glasses man, but fortunately, the black-rimmed glasses man next to him said in time:

"This is a trade secret involving the company and has nothing to do with this case, so we will not reply, please ask the collegial panel for approval."

Without waiting for the judge to speak, Du Fei continued to output:

"Make it clear to the collegial panel whether we can show such a true data."

Another judge next to the presiding judge replied:

"Yes, please explain the source of this data."

Du Fei nodded:

"Well, according to the first issue of "Imperial Bicycle" magazine this year, the total number of shared bicycles in the magic capital this year exceeded 800,000."

"According to the information released by the Modu Transportation Committee two years ago, as of two years ago, the total number of shared bicycles on the market in Modu exceeded 1.7 million during the peak period, and the number of shared bicycles launched by the defendant company in the Modu market reached 700,000 during the peak period."

"At the end of last year, the defendant company still put 400,000 bicycles in Shanghai, and the above two data come from relevant reports on xx news network."

"Can I continue to ask questions?"

The judge nodded, "Go on." ”

"On the issue of the facts of the defendant's business, according to the population density of the magic capital, what is the reasonable total number of shared bicycles in the magic capital?"

The man with black-rimmed glasses said again:

"Please ask the collegial panel, we think that this issue is not related to the facts of this case, and then we think that the question and answer session is still to ask questions about the relevant facts of this case, so we will not reply, I hope the collegial panel will approve it, thank you."

Du Fei:

"I hope the collegial panel understands that this is a basic industry situation of the other party, and this industry situation is related to the possibility of children coming into contact with bicycles."

Song Tingchuan added at this time:

"In view of Article 6 of the Law on the Protection of Minors, enterprises should have the responsibility to protect the legitimate rights and interests of minors, so what measures has your company taken in addition to setting up car locks? If so, why is there not even a simple warning slogan on the body? ”

The man with white-rimmed glasses took the microphone again:

"Because one of the main audiences of our shared bicycles is users over the age of 12, when we register users, we must be over the age of 12 to be able to pass the company's review, which is a means for us to carry out the warning obligation."

"Secondly, our car locks were strictly screened when they were purchased."

"The collegial panel can see that in the seventh item on the second page of the evidence just presented by the plaintiff, in the determination of accident liability, there is an appraisal opinion on the function of the bicycle-related safety device, and in the final appraisal conclusion, we have not found any appraisal conclusion that there are certain problems with the bicycle."

"So we think that the bicycle we just talked about is actually in a safe state, does the plaintiff accept this evidence?"

Du Fei picked up the document in front of him:

"The plaintiff also saw the evidence."

The man with white-rimmed glasses questioned:

"If the other party agrees with this evidence, does it prove that there is no corresponding problem with the lock of the bicycle involved in the case?"

This time, before Song Tingchuan and the others could speak, the presiding judge opened his mouth:

"The collegial panel asks the defendant a question that the plaintiff can answer if he knows."

"Has the defendant ever received a case where there is a technical problem with your lock or there has been a claim?"

This question...... For the material in their hands, it is obviously beyond the norm.

The man in white-rimmed glasses looked a little flustered.

"Hmm...... As lawyers, we don't know much about this part, but the fact that a 12-year-old child can open the lock is the only case cited by the other party. ”

Song Tingchuan also took the microphone:

"I have an opinion to add, in fact, two years ago, there was a Mr. Shi who also opened the lock without going through the app, and had an accident in the process of the car, but in such a precedent, the adult was compensated even in the case of theft."

The presiding judge nodded.

"Okay, and one more question, defendant, did you make technical improvements when you received similar cases, or when you received similar feedback on technology?"

"Uh, we think companies can take on some corporate responsibility, if uh...... Based on the ...... of social responsibility"

The presiding judge interrupted him: I love e-books

"You just answer my question directly, have you received similar complaints, have you made improvements, and what is the effect of the improvements?"

"Well, there's no such situation right now......"

"Is there or isn't?"

The man with black-rimmed glasses came to the rescue in time:

"Well, now that's the case, what we know is that we have implemented an increase in the number of people who manage bicycles, but for the management of this issue that you just said, uh, the defendant didn't tell the lawyer, thank you."

The presiding judge nodded:

"I hope you will find out when you go back, and give an answer within a week."

"Okay, thank you, collegial court."

Judge: "Do you have any other questions for the defendant?" ”

Man with black glasses:

"There is another question, may I ask the plaintiff, in your claim, there are claims for transportation, accommodation, food, lost work expenses, etc., so is there any relevant evidence to support it?"

Du Fei: "In fact, this is a self-evident fact......"

The man with black-rimmed glasses sharply interrupts:

"I just need the plaintiff to answer yes or no?"

Du Fei clenched his fists, "There is no evidence." ”

The man with black light glasses hooked his lips: "There is no problem with the defendant." ”

Presiding Judge:

"Okay, there's no question for both sides, right?"

Du Fei: "There is no question to ask. ”

Presiding Judge's Head:

"The following is a court debate to briefly summarize the focus of the dispute between the two parties, the first is whether the defendant is at fault, the second is whether there is a causal relationship between the consequences of the victim's injury and the fault of the plaintiff's victim, and the third is what is the magnitude of this cause, and I hope to debate around these three focuses."

"First of all, the plaintiff is invited to make a statement."

Song Tingchuan:

"Okay, thank you, collegial court."

"First of all, the first point of contention is that the plaintiff claims that the defendant is at fault."

"Because the defendant should have taken the initiative to take protective measures to prevent the car lock from being easily opened by children, and the defendant did not take some positive duty to prevent this potential danger, in fact it violated its statutory obligations, so his omission was at fault."

"The second point of contention is that the driver's behavior is a harmful result and a direct cause, and the defendant's failure to actively take organizational measures when putting the bicycle is an indirect cause of Xiao Ming's death."

"The third point of controversy is that if Xiao Ming's child did not ride this bicycle by such an abnormal means, then his speed could not have reached 16 kilometers per hour."

"Secondly, we should realize that a twelve-year-old child, although his mind is not yet sound, but he has a basic understanding of right and wrong, if Xiao Ming does not ride this bicycle, they should play on the crosswalk, not on the road."

"Therefore, we believe that the defendant company should account for 60% of the time, combined with the speed and location. The result of Lao Li driving a truck causing Xiao Ming's death accounted for 40%, which together constituted the tort of the entire case. ”

The judge nodded:

"I would like to invite the defendant to make a statement."

Men with white framed glasses:

"The first is that we can see that this evidence has clearly shown that a traffic accident in this case was caused by Lao Li's negligence and Xiao Ming's own retrograde fault, and the determination of responsibility is very clear, and it has nothing to do with the defendant's behavior."

"Second, as an enterprise with a public service nature, the purpose of designing this lock itself is actually to protect the safety of our company's property, and there is no reason for the plaintiff to insist that the property security lock must be set up to be foolproof."

"Thirdly, in a situation where bicycles are so common, we can't justify that we have created such a risk just because bicycles are easily accessible."

"To give a simple example, we would say that some people have caused personal injury because of alcoholism, but because we say that alcohol is easy to buy, we assume that the possibility of contact directly leads to this responsibility. We also think that this logic of the other party cannot be established. ”

"The above is our opinion for a round of debate, thank you."

The man with black-rimmed glasses also added:

"On this causal relationship, the defendant would like to add a little more."

"The plaintiff has been emphasizing that the timeline of this causal relationship should be extended, but what the defendant wants to emphasize is that the causal relationship should be framed within a reasonable range, and it should not be stretched indefinitely."

"A more straightforward example is what we call the butterfly effect, where a butterfly flapping its wings in Brazil causes a hurricane in Texas."

"Can people who have suffered damage from hurricanes go to Brazil and ask for compensation from Brazilian butterfly breeders? Of course not. So this principle is actually also used in this case, thank you to the collegial court. ”

The presiding judge nodded.

"Do you want the plaintiff to make a second round of arguments?"

"There is a debate."

"Okay, the second round of debate begins."

Brother Chuan began his dimensionality reduction attack.

"First, the defendant has been emphasizing that the purpose of setting up your car locks is only to protect the safety of your own property, so may I ask, if we are in a Datong society that does not close our doors at night, does it mean that you will not even set up car locks? Is this a blatant disparity for the risk of children under the age of 12 touching bicycles? ”

"Second, the defendant used the method of alcohol to argue that this is human nature, but in fact, cigarettes and alcohol, which are a little dangerous, are also marked that minors under the age of 18 are prohibited from purchasing, and the cigarette box even clearly says that "smoking is harmful to health."

"And bicycles for a special group under the age of twelve, they ride a bicycle on the road, which means that they have to use their flesh and blood to collide with the steel giant, so the other party is downplaying and despising their obligations."

"Third, the defense emphasized that the chain of causation cannot be stretched so long, and also cited the example of the butterfly effect, but I ask the collegial court to pay attention."

"The example of the butterfly effect itself actually has a causal relationship, which also means that the defendant also agrees that there is a causal relationship between the unlocking and the final misfortune, and is only trying to use the timeline of this example to dilute this cause and effect."

"But the key problem in the case now is that the judgment and mind of a child is not as good as that of an adult, and it needs to be protected by the whole world, and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child has recognized this.

If it weren't for the solemn and solemn atmosphere of the moot court, Su Nan would have wanted to applaud Song Tingchuan.

When it comes to the ability to give counterexamples, he is definitely a leader.

However, when he heard Song Tingchuan's last words of "stealing the concept", Su Nan actually wanted to laugh a little.

Once upon a time, she also used these four words to refute Song Tingchuan, who would have thought that one day Song Tingchuan would also use these four words to refute others?

Du Fei also added:

"First of all, why we do not recognize the relevance of the liability accident determination is because when the traffic police identified the accident, he actually only took into account the two sides of the car accident at that time, and did not involve a determination of the previous subject."

"Finally, as for the extension of a causal relationship, we need to explain that the owner of the shared bicycle and the defendant company are both liable, which is special in this case."

"This is because the bicycle put by the defendant itself has a problem with the lock, and there is no warning measure, our victim Xiao Ming only rode on this bicycle, therefore, we believe that this causal relationship is not as long as the defendant said, and we believe that it is within a reasonable range."

The man with black-rimmed glasses took the microphone a little flustered, "The plaintiff has been emphasizing that the defendant is required to change the lock or put up a slogan on the car, but I want to ask you, even if we really put up the slogan or change the lock, will we be able to prevent this from happening?" Then we don't think so. ”

"Especially after the accident, the traffic police inspected our car and the lock, and the lock was intact and there was no problem, how did the plaintiff come to the conclusion that there was a problem with the lock."

Song Tingchuan helped his glasses, and the lenses seemed to have a flash of light:

"First, in response to the defendant's rhetorical question, I also want to ask, how do you know that this incident will still happen if you changed the lock and put up the slogan? That's not what we actually think. ”

"The collegial panel can see that the question raised by the plaintiff is like 'the joy of knowing the fish', which is not solvable at all, and such an assumption without any basis is meaningless in court."

"Second, we all know that Xiao Ming opened the lock without using the application software, and in this case, your lock is actually in good condition when checked, isn't this a problem in itself?"

"If the lock is broken or even tested to have been violently smashed open, then I can admit that the quality of your car lock is passable, but Xiao Ming may have extraordinary strength compared to children of the same age, so he happened to open the car lock."

"But this is not the case now, the lock is still intact after being forcibly pried open, which means that if this accident does not happen today, then this car and this lock will continue to be used, isn't this a great hidden danger?"

"Third, the other party is constantly emphasizing the state of no fault and no causation, and it is not clear what kind of obligations should be borne by the company as a new business format, so it is necessary to clarify what obligations are."

"First of all, at the level of leasing bicycles, for ordinary passengers, as the owners of bicycles, they need to fulfill the corresponding duty of care based on the safety relationship, and in terms of sharing economy, if they want to get more customers' profits, they need to bear more customer risks."

"Curious children are not social outliers, and this kind of incident is by no means abnormal, the real fact is that a technology company neglected to protect these children under the age of 12, and the fact is that it creates a huge risk for them to go on the road, and finally combined with the direct cause, the risk is realized."

"And because the 12-year-old child is congenitally weak, controlling, riding, ability, and awareness, in fact, it is the defendant's laissez-faire, inaction, disregard for rights and pursuit of the development of new business formats and commercial profits, which leads to the setting of danger, and such harm is actually attributed to the defendant."

The scene was quiet for a few seconds, and then the other party said:

"First of all, we have conducted a strict review when buying this car lock, which can avoid being easily opened by children under the age of 12."

"We have also seen that there are cases like Xiao Ming, but the other party can't criticize us, saying that because there are such cases, let all our car locks be replaced."

"Secondly, when our bicycle is registered, we need to enter the ID number to make a identification, which can be regarded as fulfilling the obligation to protect children."

"Finally, we actually recognize that enterprises should assume certain social responsibilities, such as making certain modifications to the bicycle and pasting certain slogans on the bicycle, but our commitment to social responsibility is not the same as our tort liability today."

"Because in this case, there is no problem with the quality of our products, and we are not at fault for it, of course, in fact, we are also very sad about the death of the child."

"Out of moral considerations, we have actually discussed with the plaintiff before, and we are willing to compensate such an amount of 200,000 yuan to express our condolences for the death of the child, then the above is our last round of debate, thank you."