Violation of the consumer does not mean that operators are not responsible is a common

"The consumer is not equal to the illegal operators without liability" is a common sense of "Badaling wild zoo tiger wounding incident 3 months later, the injured tourists for the first time to claim the zoo, and the Badaling wildlife zoo says it is not liable, without compensation, even for humanitarian compensation. In October 20th, China Consumer Association Legal Department responsible person said, in the management, protection of consumer safety is the first responsibility of the operator; in the main responsibility, the operator is the first responsibility of protecting the safety of consumers, consumers "illegal" is not equal to the operator without responsibility. In the dissemination of public events, the role of agenda setting has been paid more and more attention. This incident, has been in the past 3 months, still did not restore the original "SAPO" — because the injured tourists are SAPO tiger bite, exactly from where? It can be said that if the first time to the public transmission not "SAPO", but other events will have a different direction, this is not to say. When playing chess has a term called "when A bystander is always clear-minded., with Those closely involved cannot see clearly., bystander subjective bias, regard themselves as" the authorities ", but not" A bystander is always clear-minded". The responsibility of the two sides set the critical line where, in the end who should bear the responsibility, how much responsibility can only be resolved through negotiations. "Justice is the last line of defense to safeguard social fairness and justice". If negotiations do not work, the two sides can not find a consensus, it can only seek justice to the law. Thus, the head of the legal department of the China Consumer Association, is not the final determination, but from an empirical point of view, the consumer does not mean that the operator is not responsible for violations, or very reasonable. To illustrate the problem, may wish to cite an example. A citizen to the hotel consumption, because the ground is slippery, accidentally fell down, the hotel should bear the responsibility? The answer is yes. Even if the hotel made a sign, shown on the "slippery floor, fell conceited, still have to bear the responsibility. The same principle applies to the use of vehicles, the driver in advance statement "travel risk, safety is not responsible," can you evade responsibility? Perhaps in this process, the consumer has irregularities, has the responsibility to bear, but does not mean that operators do not have the responsibility, you can stay out. The "consumer protection law" twenty-sixth stipulates that the operator is not in terms of format, notice, statement, shop notices, etc., to exclude or limit the rights of consumers, reduce or exempt the operator responsibility, increased consumer responsibility provisions to consumers unfair, unreasonable, and shall not make use of the standard terms and with the technical means to force the transaction. In other words, some of the responsibility is not exempt from the declaration of exemption can not be avoided that can be avoided. It is in this sense, the consumer does not mean that the operator is not responsible for violations. A few days ago, the media reported that the China zoo Association, said the zoo zero distance driving mode should be phased out. Why should be eliminated, because the zero distance driving mode is not suitable for national conditions, the existence of security vulnerabilities. The existence of this vulnerability, it is difficult to say is not the responsibility of the zoo. It has been said that the safe operation of a system must be redundant. Because of the wildlife park.相关的主题文章: