The child climbed the tree, touched the bird and fell down. Spent 30 thousand. Does the tree mainly compensate?

In some places, the existing laws are really confusing, subverting all the rules that people generally recognized in the past. Obviously, some of them have no responsibility at all, just find a reason to claim compensation from their employers. Not only was a child killed when he climbed a tree and dug a bird's nest, but two people went out to play together. One of them is unpopular, and the family says why not take good care of it.

A child went to someone else's pickaxe tree to steal an immature pickaxe. Because the owner had just applied pesticides to prevent insects, the child was hospitalized because of poisoning. He went to the tree owner's house to pay for medical expenses, and the tree mainly paid half. He has to buy something to go to the hospital for fear of serious accidents.

A motorcycle is going home after going to the market to buy food. A neighbor refused to be dissuaded and insisted on taking her home all the way. On the way, her foot twisted on the wheel, causing bone damage. As a result, the motorcycle owner took the initiative to pay some expenses.

A young man borrowed someone else's car to do business and hit someone. He found the owner according to the car number and claimed for the car. The borrower is fine, but the owner loses money, and the owner is speechless.

There are also children drowning in fish ponds contracted by others, drivers driving on highways and killing dogs that suddenly run out, etc., which can only be explained by rationality, illegality and legality. It is precisely because of these provisions in the law that people have a legal reference for claiming compensation. Well, anyway, people live in the world, be careful, and you never know when disaster will fall from the sky.

I think this statement and idea is just a joke.

"If you don't plant this tree, will my son break his leg?" At first glance, causality is established. It's true. If the tree had not been planted, the accident would not have happened.

Then, the question is whether the owner of the tree should plant it.

Anyone who has been to the countryside should know, and should know, that in the countryside, as soon as you leave home, all you can see are trees, near and far, on the edge of the ground, along the ravine, on the mountain, under the mountain ... where possible and allowed (pay attention to this "permission"), people will plant trees.

Of course, people generally don't plant trees in places that are not allowed, such as cultivated land.

This means that people are allowed to plant trees.

Trees are allowed to be planted, and it is not illegal.

There are bird's nests in trees, which is a natural phenomenon, not to mention not allowed.

However, one thing is not allowed, that is, climbing these trees casually.

This is not allowed, we adults don't say, because we all know it is dangerous.

As for those children, I think their teachers and parents must have said more than once that climbing trees is dangerous, which is the most basic knowledge of safety education.

But the child still climbed and had an accident. Who do you blame? I can't blame the owner of the tree

They are allowed to plant trees. Climbing a tree is your personal behavior. Tree owners can't and can't foresee that children can climb trees. To say the least, the tree owner can't always stay under the tree and take precautions. Right?

Therefore, this matter can only be handled by yourself.

What should children do if they climb trees and touch black eggs and fall? Hurry to the hospital for treatment, and 350,000 will be counted by yourself. The causal relationship should be clarified, and the innocent pot should be ignored. There is nothing wrong with tree owners planting trees, and they are not responsible for losing money. Don't blame others for not taking good care of their children. Be reasonable when dealing with people, and make trouble without reason will annoy everyone. If you lack literacy, social ridicule will avoid suspicion. Citizens must stress public morality and establish correct values.

Thirty thousand? This card is meaningless. Even if you are crazy about money, you can't get it. Because your reasons for asking for money are improper, untenable and lack of legal basis.

The reason you gave is not in line with the objective reality, unreasonable and suspected of blackmailing others. If people don't plant trees and there is no bird's nest on them, your children won't climb the trees, and they won't fall and break their legs. According to this logical reasoning, the responsibility lies with your parents. If you two don't have this child, there won't be a child climbing the tree, which is the same as planting this tree.

Here I want to talk about the law. I don't know when it started. It has been mentioned that there is nothing wrong with "humanized law enforcement". One situation seems to indicate that the law is not serious enough. Take this case as an example. If the lawyer says, "the child climbs the tree and breaks it, he will bear the main responsibility, but for human reasons, the grower will pay a certain proportion of medical expenses." This is the loophole of "humanized law enforcement".

The old farmer believes that children climbing trees is a personal behavior, and their guardians and parents have the responsibility to break it. The tree planter wouldn't let him climb, so he was irresponsible.

There is nothing wrong with planting trees. The state advocates afforestation. We should praise the tree planter and make contributions to beautifying the environment, and never let him compensate 30 thousand medical expenses. Planting trees should be rewarded, digging nests will destroy the ecology, and hurting animals protected by the state should be punished. Parents should be responsible for failing to educate their children well.

This is sophistry, this is the remarks of hooligans. Should we enclose every tree in the country and put up a big sign that says it is dangerous to climb trees?

"If you don't plant this tree, will my son break his leg?" So, you have to pay the price!

This truth is not only to know people orally, but also to convince them orally.

But it can't help but make people gasp in admiration: this money is really amazing! Some people lose face for money.

I don't know much about other places. In our country, in the wild, except cultivated land, crops can be planted, and all kinds of trees are poplar, willow, acacia, phoenix tree ... mountains, canyons and roadsides ... except trees or trees.

There are a lot of bird's nests, and incidents of "wild children" stealing trees to dig bird's nests have occurred frequently, and there have been several accidents, but they are not as serious as the title says.

There is no such thing as letting the owner of the tree lose money. On the contrary, they are all children climbing trees. They were injured and said nothing about the pain. Later, I will be beaten and scolded by my parents and criticized by my teacher.

Yes, trees were planted by others, not for you to climb. Your child was injured while climbing a tree, so the tree owner should pay for it? What kind of reason is this?

On the roadside, along the gully, people plant trees without violating any rules, which is reasonable and legal, and every household does so. Why should people compensate you?

I seem to have heard another saying that a sign "No Climbing Trees" should be written under the tree.

Oh, my God, there are trees everywhere on the mountain. How many signs do you want to write? Besides, have you ever seen a small forest in the countryside marked?

It is common sense that climbing trees is dangerous. The teacher said that parents should discipline their children more, and only parents should be responsible for accidents.

It's no use relying on anyone.

The child climbed the tree, touched the bird and fell down. Spent 30 thousand. Does the tree mainly compensate? Reasons for compensation from children's families: Can my son break his leg without planting trees?

At first glance, from the causal analysis, this statement seems to be like this. Then the owner of the tree honestly lost money! In fact, this problem is not so simple to deal with.

There are too many cases with the same content, some are made public and some are private. The result is different.

This incident affirmed that the child was the wrong party, and the owner of the tree was not responsible as long as it was not planted illegally. However, out of human morality, children are the injured party. You can also show sympathy, see or buy something to eat, or give some money to show it.

It can't be said that the tree owner has no responsibility at all. After all, children are not sensible and have a weak sense of security. Can't be like children. This will not happen if the tree owner sets obstacles or warning signs under the tree to prevent it from climbing, or if the tree owner tries his best to supervise and prevent children from climbing.

For example, if you are driving normally, there is a deaf-mute or mentally abnormal person in Lu Yu who doesn't listen to you honking his horn and doesn't look at your vehicle. You run him over or kill him. It is impossible to say that you have no fault and responsibility for breaking the rules, nor can you say that you have nothing, let alone that you have left.

But after things happen, the result is often different from what you think.

A few days ago, there was a case in which a neighbor's child climbed the gate to dig a bird's nest and fell down and died.

It is said that the master has no responsibility, but the child's responsibility. But in the end, I compensated the children's families for tens of thousands of dollars. The basis is that the owner has not fulfilled his obligation to persuade and stop the child's dangerous behavior.

Personal opinion, welcome to exchange!

"If I don't plant trees, will my son break his leg?" Similar: "Will your son break his leg if he doesn't climb the tree?" There is nothing wrong with planting trees, and you should not be responsible; Climbing a tree is wrong, you have to bear the consequences.

Planting trees did not violate the provisions of national laws and regulations, did not plant trees at the time and place prohibited by laws and regulations, did not plant tree species prohibited by the state, and did not violate other regulations. Therefore, there is no fault. On the contrary, planting trees is a response to the call of the country to "green the motherland" and a courageous act, which should be praised.

Trees are used for greening, not for climbing trees. Your son climbed a tree without authorization in violation of regulations and fell down carelessly at his own risk. He shouldn't go to the owner of the tree.

If the owner of the tree is willing to pay, so should the bird. If the bird doesn't nest in the tree, you won't climb it.

Others plant trees for greening, for beautifying the environment, not for crawling and playing. Birds have been nesting in trees since ancient times, without violating any regulations. Birds must choose trees, especially magpies. They must nest in the trees of happy families. They are also for the happiness and reproduction of the next generation.

The tree climber, regardless of other people's feelings, deliberately destroyed the bird's happy family and harmed himself. If this bird is protected by the state, you will be held accountable and punished accordingly.

Besides, you didn't fall from the tree, but fell from the tree. What does this have to do with the tree? It has nothing to do with the owner of the tree. You are responsible for falling to the ground.

What can the earth give you? If you fall down on the highway, do you need someone to repair it? If you are stuck with a fishbone, you should find someone to sell fish. According to this thinking, the world is full of money.