论文部分内容阅读
１９９９年１１月１０日，熊某诉北京肯德基有限公司人身损害赔偿一案在北京市海淀区人民法院公开审理，吸引了诸多新闻媒体和社会公众的关注。今天，老百姓上法院讨说法已不再是什么新鲜事儿了，但针对消费者在接受商家提供的商品或服务的过程中发生人身损害而向商家索赔的事件，消费者应该如何正确处理和对待，法律为商家规定了哪些义务，消费者又负有哪些法定的责任，索赔数额如何确定，精神损害赔偿的标准究竟是什么等等，这些涉及法律、道德、社会公平正义、司法实践等多角度、多层次的问题还有待深入的探讨。也许正是因为本案所具有的典型性并结合审判制度公开化及普法的需要，受理本案的北京市海淀区人民法院决定对该案进行大范围公开审理，并允许新闻媒介对庭审进行现场报道。在洋快餐角为北京城，众多知名品牌的竞争战打得如火如荼的时下，“消费者向肯德基索赔 ３０万”的消息一见诸报端，自然引起人们的兴趣，在此背景下，本案的审理也陡增了许多色彩。
On November 10, 1999, Xiong Mou v. Beijing KFC Co., Ltd., a case of personal injury compensation, held a public hearing at the Haidian District People’s Court in Beijing, attracting the attention of many news media and the general public. Today, people go to court to discuss the law is no longer a new thing, but for consumers in the process of accepting merchants to provide goods or services to personal injury claims to businesses, how consumers should be properly addressed and treated , What obligations the law provides for the business, which statutory responsibilities the consumer has, how to determine the amount of compensation and what the standards of compensation for mental damages are, etc., all of which involve legal, moral, social fairness and justice and judicial practice Multi-level issues have yet to be explored in depth. Perhaps because of the typical nature of the case and the need to open the trial system and popularize the legal system, the Beijing Haidian District People’s Court, which accepted the case, decided to conduct a large-scale public hearing of the case and allow the news media to conduct on-site coverage of the trial. In the Western fast food corner of Beijing, many well-known brand competition in full swing nowadays, “consumers claim 300,000 KFC,” the news at the newspapers, naturally aroused people’s interest in this context, the trial of the case Also increased sharply many colors.