***Example of agent words for death cases caused by drinking alcohol

In the case where *** died due to drinking, there is a prescribed format for writing agent words. You can refer to the following sample essay. Below, I will introduce to you in detail the legal knowledge related to *** cases of death caused by drinking alcohol.

***Sample essay on behalf of a case of death due to drinking alcohol

Dear presiding judge and judge:

As entrusted by the plaintiff in this case, I appear in court to participate. After the court hearing of this case, based on the facts of the case and relevant legal provisions, the following agency opinions are put forward for reference, and we hope to be adopted.

1. As ***’s drinking companions, the defendant and others engaged in toasting and persuading people to drink during the drinking process.

According to the transcript made by * in the public security organ, the three of them looked for each other to drink. You respect me and I respect you. They drank from white porcelain bowls, no less than a pound. Alcohol, I felt like he was drunk when I left? It can also be seen from other people's investigation records that at noon on the day of the incident, the victim and the defendant drank two bottles of liquor and then asked for two more bottles. Although the exact amount he drank is now unknown, the victim’s autopsy report showed that the alcohol content in his blood was as high as 329.5mg/100ml.

Since the victim is no longer alive, it is impossible to confront and restore the truth. However, the alcohol content detected in the victim’s autopsy report and the narrative of the person involved can be inferred from the victim’s drinking amount. To take a step back, even if the defendant did not persuade the victim to drink, it can only show that the defendant did not have direct intention to cause the victim to get drunk, but it does not deny indirect intention, let alone the fact that the victim's drunkenness was caused by the defendant's drinking behavior with his wife.

2. The defendants failed to fulfill their obligations to remind and dissuade the victim while he was drinking.

Each of the defendants in this case had friends and relatives of the victim. During the meal, they could clearly feel the victim’s drinking status. If the victim drank too much, he should promptly remind and dissuade the victim. Enough is enough, but the defendants in this case failed to fulfill the above obligations, had certain faults, and were inescapably responsible for the victim's drunkenness.

3. Each defendant failed to fulfill its safety protection obligations within reasonable limits.

(1) The hotel failed to fulfill its safety protection obligations.

First of all, the hotel has no industrial and commercial registration and no sanitation, fire protection and other licenses related to operating the hotel, which is an illegal operation. At the same time, according to the hotel staff's records, it can be seen that the stairs in the hotel are too narrow and do not meet safety standards at all. When rescuing the victim, he could not even carry him out smoothly. In other words, the victim is no longer alive, and it is unknown how the bump to the victim's head recorded in the autopsy report was caused.

However, it does not rule out that the defendant in this case did not fulfill the necessary duty of care and caused a collision when rescuing the victim. Secondly, the hotel still sold liquor to the customers even though they knew they were drunk, indulged in drinking, and failed to consider the customers and exercise due care. In addition, Zhou, as a hotel staff member, according to *'s account, poured wine and water on the victim during the entire drinking process, which also aggravated the victim's drunkenness.

In short, the hotel operated illegally and did not establish necessary safety measures. As the operator of the hotel, the defendant in this case should be responsible for the death of the victim in accordance with Article 1 of the Tort Liability Law of the People's Republic of China. Paragraph 1 of Article 37: If managers of hotels, shopping malls, banks, stations, entertainment venues and other public places or organizers of mass activities fail to fulfill their safety guarantee obligations and cause damage to others, they shall be Bear liability for infringement? Bear liability according to the provisions.

(2) As the defendant’s dining companions, the defendants failed to fulfill their obligation to safely escort the victim when he was drunk.

When the victim was drunk, the defendants did not take necessary safety protection measures and left one after another, failing to fulfill their obligation to escort the victim safely.

However, the above-mentioned obligations arising from his previous drinking and other behaviors were not exempted, and objectively it could not prevent the death of the victim. Subjectively, there is fault in the sense of civil law. Should bear corresponding civil liability.

4. The defendant was negligent in rescuing, causing the victim to delay treatment and die.

In this case, according to the confessions of the defendants in the public security organs, as a hotel operator, the defendant did not call the emergency hotline after discovering that the victim’s lips were purple, foaming at the mouth, and showing life-threatening signs. This is the number to dial *. After the defendant arrived, he still did not call the emergency number. Instead, he carried the victim out and took the victim to a transportation hospital with poor medical conditions in a private car without any treatment equipment. The victim was sent to the county hospital only when the traffic hospital did not have the necessary treatment conditions. These facts can also be confirmed from the transcripts made by other defendants in the public security organs.

And the defendant did not have any evidence to show that he had performed timely and correct rescue obligations. The agent believes that Article 6, Paragraph 2, of the Tort Liability Law of the People's Republic of China should be followed: "According to legal provisions, it is presumed that the actor is at fault, and if the actor cannot prove that he is not at fault, he shall bear tort liability?" stipulates that the defendant shall be held civilly liable.

In summary, in this case, the cause of death of the victim was that he died from arachnoid hemorrhage due to a collision while drunk and did not receive timely treatment. Although the defendants in this case did not have the same intention, their actions were directed at the same target of infringement and caused the same damage. Each person's behavior was the same cause of the damage, and the damage results were inseparable. If it is an objective infringement act, joint and several liability shall be borne.

Therefore, the agent recommends that in accordance with Article 8 of the Tort Liability Law of the People's Republic of China: If two or more persons jointly commit tortious acts and cause damage to others, they shall bear joint and several liability. . ? stipulates the responsibilities of each defendant in this case.

The above suggestions are requested to be adopted by the court.

Agent: XXX

20XX/X/X

***Agent word model essay for death case involving drinking together

Liu Agent X

Presiding judge and judge:

Accepting the entrustment of the appellant in this case, I was appointed by xx Law Firm to serve as the appellant’s second-instance attorney. The agent believes that the original court's judgment was unclear in determining the facts and applied the law incorrectly, and the appellant should not be liable for compensation. To this end, the agent issued the following opinions:

1. Liu Xx was not at fault and should not be liable for compensation.

Civil liability is predicated on the existence of civil obligations. ***Whether the same drinker bears responsibility depends on whether he or she has the duty of care, such as admonishment, care, notification, etc. during the drinking process, and whether he or she is responsible for the drunk person. They have the obligation to prevent danger under civil law, that is, whether the person drinking the same drink should bear the obligation to ensure safety.

Citizens’ legal responsibilities and legal obligations cannot be generalized and cannot conflict with normal social activities. Drinking at a banquet is a normal activity of social interaction. You cannot bear legal obligations and thus bear legal liability just because you invite others to drink or drink together. Only when the same act of drinking causes specific dangers to others, other drinkers will have specific obligations. Otherwise, there will be no legal rights and obligations between them.

In this case, xx invited xx to a banquet. The purpose was to have dinner and drink. Other people are also invitees. Logically speaking, they should not and cannot prevent others from drinking. This is a a normal social interaction activity.

As a person who was invited to drink, the appellant has nothing to do with Li xx. His obligation during the drinking process should be not to fight with others, persuade others to drink, or maliciously serve others, and to do so when he can Fulfill the duty of care and notification within the scope. Although Li xx drove here to eat, Li xx promised to play mahjong after the meal, so the appellant drank with him.

There is nothing wrong with drinking. During the drinking process, the appellant did not compete with Li xx, persuade him to drink, or maliciously force him to drink. The amount of alcohol he could drink was the result of Li xx’s own decision. Therefore, the appellant has fulfilled his duty of care during the drinking process. . After drinking, Li xx said that he had something to leave. After Tang Yonggui and others tried their best to persuade him to stay but failed, Tang Yonggui said that he would find someone to send Li xx off, but Li xx refused. Judging from this process, although Li xx drank, he did not drink too much (everyone’s tolerance for alcohol is different), he was not in an unconscious state, and he could still protect himself. As a person with full capacity for civil conduct, he should They knew the consequences of their actions, and Tang Yonggui and others' dissuasive actions had fulfilled their duty of care. In fact, this duty of care is applicable to the "prior act obligation" theory. The co-drinkers must perform prior behaviors, that is, treating guests, persuading people to drink, drinking together, and other behaviors that induce Li xx to drink excessively, which then triggers a subsequent duty of care. In other words, drinking too much alcohol cannot be said to be at fault, but the problem is that because the wife has committed the prior act of drinking too much alcohol, a subsequent obligation to protect will arise. The appellant did not participate in xxx's excessive drinking behavior (from the perspective of the drinking situation). After the meal, others performed due diligence in response to Li xx's dissuasive behavior, and Li xx drove away despite everyone's dissuasion. This is no longer an appeal. The scope that humans can control. Therefore, the appellant had no fault and should not be liable for compensation.

One thing the attorney wants to emphasize here is that the court of first instance did not deny the attorney’s above-mentioned point of view. When it determined that xx and xx were not responsible, it considered that although the two were drinkers at the same table, There was no fault in the traffic accident caused by the victim's drunk driving. However, drunk driving is expressly prohibited by law. Guo Jun and Xia Yongsheng also participated in the drinking process. They are both alcoholics and drinkers. The amount of alcohol they drank when they left should not be used to determine whether they were at fault. According to the judgment criteria of the original court, Guo Jun and Xia Yongsheng were also at fault because they also drank with Li xx, so they should bear responsibility for Li xx's driving afterwards.

2. The principle of joint and several liability compensation does not apply to this case.

The assumption of joint liability must be expressly stipulated in the law or clearly agreed upon by the parties. According to Article 8 of the Tort Liability Law, if two or more persons jointly commit tortious acts and cause damage to others, they shall bear the liability Joint and several liability. It can be seen that the basis for assuming joint liability must be to jointly commit the infringement. When Li xx died in a traffic accident, none of the defendants in the original trial were the tortfeasors, so they should not bear responsibility, let alone joint and several liability. Since this case was a liability issue that arose after the duty of care was caused by drinking first and was not a directly committed act of co-infringement, the court of first instance ordered the appellant and others to bear joint and several liability as the law did not provide for joint and several liability. Liability has neither factual nor legal basis.

3. The compensation ratio determined by the original court was unfair.

The court of first instance ruled that the case was liable for compensation. Even so, the proportion of compensation determined was inappropriate.

As a person with full capacity for civil conduct, Li xx should have sufficient understanding of the consequences of his drinking, and he should bear the primary responsibility; and the behavior of the person who persuaded him to drink promoted the occurrence of harmful consequences, and he should bear the secondary responsibility. The total number of liability ratios should not exceed 30. Li xx promised to play cards after drinking before drinking. When he wanted to drive away due to business, he ignored the dissuasion of others and insisted on driving by himself. Regarding the illegality of drunk driving, Li xx is well aware that he should have more duty of care and cannot impose this duty on others, especially farmers like Liu Zhanjiang who do not know how to drive. Therefore, the proportion of the co-drinkers who persuaded others to drink should not exceed 20%. In this case, it was determined that the total loss caused by Li xx’s death was 330,675.5 yuan, 20 of which was 66,135 yuan. This paragraph should determine the corresponding proportion of liability borne by the guest, the drinker, and other drinkers based on their respective duties of care, and the case cannot be handled by the exclusive compensation method.

4. This case should be handled according to the principle of compensation.

Looking at the objective facts of this case, the traffic accident, which led to the death of Li xx, was caused by multiple causes.

The rupture of his pulmonary artery due to a traffic accident was the direct and main cause of his death, and drinking was the indirect and secondary cause of his harmful consequences. Since Li xx did not die of alcohol poisoning after drinking, other drinkers were not at fault for the consequences of Li xx’s death. According to the general tort liability principle, liability for compensation is not applicable in this case. But after all, because drinking is one of the reasons for this kind of consequences, the plaintiff in the original trial should be given appropriate compensation by the drinkers based on their respective levels of care when drinking. This is in line with the principle of fair liability under the General Principles of Civil Law. The agent believes that this is the solution. The way of this case.

Agent: xxx Law Firm

January 10, 20xx

Agreed obligations of safety protection obligations

The purpose of the safety and security obligation is to prevent others from suffering damage to their personal and property belongings, so the safety and security obligation can also be defined as the obligation to prevent others from suffering damage. ?Generally speaking, the obligation to avoid harm is usually premised on the proximate relationship between the offender and the victim or the source of danger. Both give rise to liability, which in turn creates a duty to intervene. The typical first situation is when parents must protect themselves from self-inflicted damage. Similar safety (security) obligations also arise from those individuals or organizations who voluntarily assume responsibility for others, including assuming responsibility without a contractual basis. ?

Although in theory some safety guarantee obligations can be interpreted as incidental obligations under contract law, judging from China’s legislative practice, laws and administrative regulations have stipulated a large number of operators’ obligations under various specific circumstances. However, the contract law does not (and cannot) provide clear enumerated provisions on this. Therefore, it is more appropriate in principle to determine the Chinese operators’ safety guarantee obligations for service venues as legal obligations, which is in line with my country’s current laws. , the model established by regulations.