The textbook style of cheating and losing the lawsuit is very gratifying
4hw.com.cn: because she refused to pay compensation after a car accident, the perpetrator Huang Shufen was called a 'textbook Lao Lai'. Huang Shufen then sued Sina Weibo and Yue Shushan, a lawyer who spread relevant videos online, to the Beijing Internet court, asking the other party to compensate 400000 yuan for loss, 300000 yuan for mental damage and 100000 yuan for rights protection costs on the grounds of reputation infringement, and stop making compensation for infringement and apologize. This morning (June 18), the first instance judgment of Beijing Internet court rejected all claims of Huang Shufen.
Huang Shufen, known as the "textbook Lao Lai", claimed 800000 yuan
The Beijing News previously reported that on October 6, 2015, Zhao Xiangbin, the father of Zhao Yong, a Tangshan man, suffered a car accident and died in December the following year. On June 8, 2016, Tangshan intermediate people's Court of first instance ruled that the perpetrator Huang Shufen needed to compensate more than 850000 yuan, which was limited to payment within 10 days after the judgment came into effect. According to Zhao Yong, Huang Shufen refused to pay compensation after the accident occurred for more than two years. Zhao Yong released the video and audio contact with Huang Shufen's family to the network. Since then, Huang Shufen has been called a 'textbook Lao Lai'.
Huang Shufen will forward the video lawyer Yue Shenshan and the platform Sina Weibo to the court. She sued that on October 6, 2015, a traffic accident occurred on Tangshan Tangfeng expressway, which was recognized by the traffic police department that both parties were responsible. Huang Shufen said that during her normal driving, three cyclists who seriously violated the road traffic safety law forcibly crossed the double solid line expressway. One of them, Zhao Xiangbin, collided with her own vehicle, causing damage to the vehicles of both sides. After the incident, Zhao Yong, the son of Zhao Xiangbin, received a social public welfare donation of 210000 yuan and was supported by the court for 17 years of nursing and nutrition expenses. Zhao Yong also applied for enforcement.
During the lawsuit, Zhao Yong induced Huang Shufen to secretly record the video content required for the established purpose through the director's and designed speech and action stimulation in advance. After editing by professionals, he formed 776 days after the accident, which was released on the real name account of sina Weibo on November 22, 2017. Under the condition that Huang Shufen has compensated 492000 yuan, Deceive and mislead the public and call it 'unpaid'.
Three hours after the release of Zhao Yong's video, lawyer Yue Shenshan forwarded the video on the microblog with real name authentication.
Huang Shufen believes that Yue Zhenshan forwarded the video as a lawyer, legal expert and media observer that night, which formed a major event of national public opinion concern. A large number of personal privacy information about him was disseminated. He and his daughter received a large number of insults and insults by text messages and phone calls, resulting in his being dubbed "textbook old Lai" and extensive coverage by major media, As a result, the social evaluation of himself and his daughter decreased sharply, and he was unable to work and live a normal life.
Huang Shufen believed that sina Weibo and Yue Shushan constituted a reputation infringement, and sued them to the court to stop the infringement, make an apology, compensate 400000 yuan for the loss, 300000 yuan for mental damage and 100000 yuan for rights protection costs.
Court of first instance: all within a reasonable limit and there is nothing improper
At 9:40 a.m. this morning, the Beijing Internet court pronounced a judgment on the case of first instance. The court held that it is impossible for the network forwarder to fully verify the forwarded content. The forwarder should bear the responsibility only when the forwarding theory is untrue, which can be judged by people with general rational common sense.
The relevant videos and titles forwarded by the defendant Yue Shenshan were not modified. When forwarding the videos involved, Yue Shenshan inquired the list of dishonest persons and fulfilled a high duty of care. The comments were also made in good faith rather than malice. His forwarding did not infringe upon Huang Shufen's right of reputation.
Yue Yanshan became the agent of Zhao Yong, who forwarded the video, and should do a higher duty of care. The court held that Yue Zhenshan's blog and relevant comments after acting as an agent were within a reasonable limit, there was no misconduct, and there was no insult and slander.
As for whether the word 'cheating' constitutes an insult, the court believes that it should be considered in the relevant context. The Tangshan court previously listed Huang Shufen as a dishonest executee, and Huang Shufen also said that Zhao Yong, as the son of the car accident victim, believes that his' cheating 'is understandable.
It intensifies Huang Shufen's confrontational mood and is not conducive to resolving social contradictions. Yue Shushan, as a big V of the network, should pay attention to it in the future. The court also held that sina Weibo did not constitute infringement.