论文部分内容阅读
1996年5月3日,俞秀英等六人将装有其亲属陈训忠骨灰的骨灰盒一只,寄存于三明市殡仪馆,寄存期为5年,三明市殡仪馆收取寄存费360元,并发给骨灰寄存证一本。2001年4月8日,俞秀英等六原告前往三明市殡仪馆欲领取骨灰盒时,发现骨灰盒已丢失。三明市殡仪馆多方寻找,并于2001年4月17日在三明广播电视报上刊登遗失公告,经多方寻找,仍未找到。之后,双方因对损失赔偿额协商未果,俞秀英等六人遂诉至法院。 一审法院经审理后认为:俞秀英等六人将其亲属的骨灰盒寄存在三明市殡仪馆,双方形成了保管合同法律关系,三明市殡仪馆来尽保管义务将寄存的骨灰盒丢失,应将所收取的保管费退还并赔偿六原告骨灰盒损失;三明市殡仪馆将六原告亲属的骨灰丢失,引起六原告所享有的对逝去父母伦理感情这一特殊的人格利益的损害,已构成对六原告人格利益的侵权,造成了六原
May 3, 1996, Yu Xiuying and other six people will be accompanied by their relatives Chen Xunzhong ashes of an urn, deposited in Sanming City funeral parlor, the deposit period of 5 years, Sanming funeral parlor fee charged 360 yuan, and sent to the deposit of evidence One. On April 8, 2001, Yu Xiuying and other six plaintiffs went to the funeral home of Sanming City to find an urn and found that the urn had been lost. Sanming City funeral home looking for more, and in April 17, 2001 Sanming radio and television newspaper published a notice of loss, the multi-looking, has not been found. After that, both parties failed to reach agreement on the amount of compensation for damages and Yu Xiuying and other six persons sued to court. After hearing the court of first instance, Yu Xiuying and other six people registered the coffin of their relatives in the funeral parlor of Sanming City. Both parties formed the legal relationship of custody contract. Sanming City funeral parlor lured the deposit obligation of the urn, The custodial fees will be refunded and the losses of the six plaintiffs will be compensated for. The loss of the ashes of the six plaintiffs as a result of the loss of the ashes of the six plaintiffs caused by the three funeral parlors in Sanming City will result in the damage to the special personality benefit enjoyed by the six plaintiffs against the ethical feelings of the deceased parents. Infringement, resulting in the six original