Jia Jia (a pseudonym), a 20-year-old girl, went in and out of the security gate, causing the alarm to sound. She was taken into the bathroom by a female employee at the North Store of CR Vanguard Supermarket South Building on Dagu South Road, and the alarm was lifted after cutting off a cloth trademark on the inside of jeans. Jiajia sued on the grounds that the supermarket violated the right of reputation. At the end of June, 5438+February, 2009, the Hexi District Court found that the supermarket had violated Jia Jia's personal dignity, awarded compensation for medical expenses, mental damage compensation * * *101.40 yuan, and posted an apology notice in the lobby of the store.
event
The security door sounded an alarm.
The bathroom was searched.
Jia Jia, a 20-year-old girl, gave an alarm when she walked out of the supermarket shopping aisle at 5 pm on October 26th, 2008. Jia Jia was stopped by the security guard, rummaged through her pockets, took off her coat and tried again, which still caused an alarm. A few minutes later, a female employee took Jia Jia into the women's bathroom and finally cut off a cloth trademark on the inside of her jeans. Jiajia passed the security gate again, but the alarm didn't go off.
After the incident, Jia Jia went to the hospital for psychological counseling and drug treatment because of emotional instability. On June 5438+ 10, 2009, Jia Jia sued Tianjin CR Vanguard Lifestyle Supermarket Co., Ltd. to Hexi District Court, demanding compensation for pants breakage fee 1200 yuan, medical fee17/40 yuan, half-year tuition fee for mental disorder of 8,600 yuan, lost parental care fee of 6,000 yuan, and mental damage compensation.
hear a case
The original notification was "forced"
The defendant argued "assistance"
During the trial, Ms. Li, the entrusted agent and mother, said that she was still a student at school at that time and was at a loss in case of unexpected events. The supermarket staff searched her by themselves. When they saw the trademark on the jeans, they just suspected it and cut it themselves without permission. At that time, many onlookers gathered in the shop, which caused great harm to Jia Jia's spirit. The behavior of the supermarket has seriously violated Jia Jia's personal dignity and reputation.
The supermarket argued that after the alarm sounded, the plaintiff handed over personal belongings to the supermarket staff for temporary storage in order to find the items that caused the magnetic door alarm. Unable to find the reason, the supermarket said that similar problems might occur in other supermarkets. The plaintiff said that she wanted to find items that were not degaussed, and then she was accompanied by a female employee of the supermarket to the bathroom. After searching, the plaintiff found that there was soft magnetism inside the jeans trademark, but it could not be removed manually by hot pressing. The plaintiff said that she would ask the female employees in the supermarket to help cut it off.
The supermarket believes that Jia Jia was not forced to look for degaussed items, but Jia Jia asked the supermarket staff to help her find them in order to avoid future troubles, and she found them herself and got her permission to cut off the trademark. After cutting, it does not affect the beauty and use of pants. In this process, there were no onlookers, and there was no pressure or harm to the plaintiff.
Announce a verdict
Recognition search
Compensation for mental damage
The court held that both parties recognized that supermarket employees cut off the trademark on the inside of Jiajia jeans. This fact shows that there is physical contact between the plaintiff and the defendant's employees in the bathroom. It is precisely because the defendant stopped the plaintiff at the security gate and tried many times that the defendant and the plaintiff searched for reasons in the bathroom.
The court held that the plaintiff, as a college student, was inexperienced and lacked the ability and experience to deal with emergencies, which was not conducive to collecting evidence in the specific environment at that time; As an operator, the supermarket has an advantage over the plaintiff in dealing with such problems, and has an advantage in collecting evidence and choosing reasonable ways to solve the problems. It should also be clear that the behavior of its female employees in the bathroom has been separated from video surveillance, and it should be proved that their behavior is legal and justified. No such evidence has been provided now, and it should be deemed that the defendant has searched the plaintiff.
The court held that the defendant believed that it was not improper to stop the plaintiff when he had degaussing items, and that it could be further dealt with by relevant departments (such as public security organs), but the self-search violated the plaintiff's personal dignity and constituted infringement. The plaintiff's request for a public apology and medical expenses should be supported.
Regarding the claim for compensation for the loss of trousers, lost time and tuition fees, the court held that the plaintiff had no evidence to prove that the trousers were lost, and that the plaintiff's illness required nursing and his absence were necessarily related to the case, so it was not supported; The defendant's personal search caused physical and mental harm to the plaintiff. Consider the degree of fault, means of infringement, occasion, behavior, etc. The compensation for mental damage is determined as 10000 yuan as appropriate.
To sum up, the Hexi District Court ruled in the first instance that the defendant posted an apology notice to the plaintiff in the lobby of Beidian, CR Vanguard South Building, Dagu South Road within 10 days from the effective date of the judgment; Compensation for the plaintiff's medical expenses 1, 7 1.40 yuan, mental damages 1 ten thousand yuan, and rejection of the plaintiff's other claims. (Reporter Xie Jinyu Yang Xuefei)