moncler jacket|replica watches outlet|replica watc

newspaper March 4, 2008 A9 published a One old man killed. Later, the police ascertained that the waiter in the school car, not get their license, and the owner gave him the keys, they forgot to ask whether he is driving .
reporter recently learned that the accident has been sentenced to probation attendants, and will face civil claims. Family of the deceased will be together owners and foot shop owner to court, asked the three together for the death of their loved ones liable. On the morning of 13th of this month, Nanjing white under the court hearing of the case.
event playback: Valet Parking killed people

2008 年 3 March On the morning of 9 o'clock, a Nanjing Huang airline staff and three friends went to the liberation of Nanjing Road Meet a foot shop leisure. Mr. Wong is a car, he parked the car in the foot at the door. The group first entered the private room to sit down to play cards, Lee came over to remind the waiter, the car can not be stopped at the door, the traffic police will be affixed to a ticket.After a while, Lee came Tim tea, another reminder of the car moved across the area where there are parking spaces. Wong asked if he would not drive, he said he would, Mr. Wong put the keys to him. Subsequently, Lee to stop, in the open area at the entrance to the village of Ruijin, the mistake the accelerator when braking, first broke the cell door, the entrance area along the downhill plunge straight ahead, and hit an old man. Old man unconscious on the spot and after she died.
families sue: sue third parties, claims 55 million

impact, the old man surnamed Xu, who is the new town of Nanjing Luhe, the day he told his wife to her homes, her daughter did not expect door died. Grief of his family, and soon to the courts to require the driver and owner liability. Lee was the driver but the prosecution indictment,replica watches outlet, they filed a civil action has been suspended. Recently, the white and the lower court conviction for Lee traffic accident one year imprisonment, suspended for one year six months. Civil action brought by the families of the deceased trial resumed, this time, they added an additional foot store owner as a co-defendant. Total claim compensation for death, funeral expenses, living expenses for dependents and other compensation totaling 55 million.
family of the deceased that the accident is purely man-made causes, the three defendants have a responsibility. Lee accused driving without a license, improper operation, the serious violation of road traffic safety law, identified by the traffic police should take full responsibility for the accident. Unaudited owners, no driver's license waiter hired for parking, the occurrence of the accident has not shirk its responsibility. Meanwhile, Lee is a foot shop staff , the valet parking is the job behavior, as an employer, employee job foot store should bear the consequences of acts of joint and several liability.
Trial Watch:

13 am, the case for the first time trial. Family of the deceased and their agents to appear, the waiter Lee also came to the accident the court, the other defense lawyers are to appear on his behalf, did not personally appear. The trial, the plaintiff and the defendant a few issues surrounding the two major debates.
●】 【encounters a valet parking attendant is not the job behavior?
Lee said in court, the boss had asked them to Therefore, he believes he is duty to help Mr. Huang behavior completely stop, and now something went wrong, the boss can not write all the responsibility on him. Foot stores argue that they never provided valet parking services at the door but could not stop well-intentioned boss has asked staff to remind owners. The store, a waitress on the court, testified that more than a year in foot shop, never seen people stop to help guests, including Lee, before the guests did not help stop a car . Accordingly foot store agents that help people stop Lee is entirely a personal behavior, has nothing to do with foot store. However, the plaintiff and other defendants that the witnesses are foot store employees, with a direct interest in the shop, so her testimony questionable.
● 【analysis, according to relevant laws and regulations, the employee intentionally or third party damage caused by gross negligence, the employer should bear joint responsibility. Bear responsibility for the employer, may be prosecuted to the employees. Lee Valet Parking in the case of job behavior, the number of foot store will certainly have to bear responsibility; if personal behavior, just like foot store irrelevant.
●】 【encounters two owners obligation to review whether the attendant license?
people believe that Mr. Huang and friends to this foot store consumer has the right to an extension of their valet parking service. In the enjoyment of the services, the customer does not need to examine whether students driving for parking services. Moreover, in the car when the keys to the waiter, Mr Wong has been asked and received the answer he would drive, it can be said that Mr Wong has done to the duty of care.
defendant argued foot store, the store has never provided valet parking services. Say the least, even if the waiter parking Lee volunteered to help Mr. Huang, who also star hotel that parking in front of the professional staff are different . to him,moncler jacket, due to the review of management obligations.
●】 【analysis of a legal profession that is the business voluntarily provide valet parking services to consumers and businesses a service contract between a consumer relationship, once the losses due to an accident, the business To bear full responsibility. But the owners should be cautious to accept parking service, or entertainment in the hotel parking officers receive specialized services, you can not review their driver's license, but the best view of their work permits, to prevent the encounter The parking staff members not specifically, just the general staff, a good idea to review their driving license. Because the The source believes that the present case not tried to review the obligations of the owners,mbt shoes sale, so the accident has not shirk its responsibility.
case there is no court verdict, the two focal issues for the judge how the answers will be how to share the liability, this newspaper will continue to pay attention. correspondent reporter Chen Shanshan three white people