How to prove that the falling billboard has nothing to do with you?
一、If the car is hit by a roadside billboard while driving normally, will everyone be protected?
If it is not caused by force majeure, the billboard party must bear all compensation and may also be punished by relevant departments.
Force majeure includes: extreme natural disasters such as strong winds exceeding billboard design standards, earthquakes, terrorist attacks, wars, etc.
If it is not caused by the above reasons, you can communicate with them and ask them to compensate for your vehicle, medical care, lost work, etc. You should pay attention to retain these evidences, photos of the scene, car repairs, injury treatment expense receipts, etc. .
If the other party denies that it is due to the weather and wants to use "force majeure" to exempt you from liability, you can ask the other party to provide legal proof of force majeure (such as the meteorological department's wind speed certification document on the day and time of the accident). He has this proof. Obligation; He must also provide certificates of qualification in the design, supervision, materials, project acceptance and other aspects of the billboard to prove that the brand is qualified and safe. Usually, when it comes to this level, the other party will choose to spend money to settle the matter. Of course, we are not trying to blackmail them, we just want to recover our actual losses.
Force majeure includes: extreme natural disasters such as strong winds exceeding billboard design standards, earthquakes, terrorist attacks, wars, etc.
If it is not caused by the above reasons, you can communicate with them and ask them to compensate for your vehicle, medical care, lost work, etc. You should pay attention to retain these evidences, photos of the scene, car repairs, injury treatment expense receipts, etc. .
If the other party denies that it is due to the weather and wants to use "force majeure" to exempt you from liability, you can ask the other party to provide legal proof of force majeure (such as the meteorological department's wind speed certification document on the day and time of the accident). He has this proof. Obligation; He must also provide certificates of qualification in the design, supervision, materials, project acceptance and other aspects of the billboard to prove that the brand is qualified and safe. Usually, when it comes to this level, the other party will choose to spend money to settle the matter. Of course, we are not trying to blackmail them, we just want to recover our actual losses.
Hello, the answer to your question is as follows:
1. Fault in civil law: it is based on ordinary human standards to deal with the parties involved in the behavior. Compare to determine whether there is a fault. For example, if A throws a watermelon from the fifth floor, then our judgment of whether he is at fault is based on the duty of care that normal people should have for their own behavior. That is, I know that throwing the watermelon from the fifth floor will hit others, which is wrong. ! Then we think A is subjectively at fault. As for throwing a watermelon (tort), B was killed by a watermelon (damage result), and B's death was due to A throwing a watermelon and hitting his head (causal relationship), these factual issues all need to be proved.
2. Article 85 of the Tort Liability Law is a change in the distribution of the burden of proof. You can understand it this way: A was in Africa at the time, so there was no infringement and naturally no fault. The person who was smashed to death was C, so A was not at fault for B. If A’s death was caused by a heart attack, then A was not at fault.
If A cannot prove these contents, then A is at fault. This is what Article 85 of the "Trespass Law" originally supposed to be proved by victim B (A's neglect of management caused the billboard to be in disrepair. It finally fell off due to strong wind) and it is left to A (the owner of the billboard) to prove it in order to balance the evidence (because it is difficult for the victims in some infringement cases to prove it).
To sum up, there is a difference between the "subjective fault" you mentioned and the "fault" in tort liability law. There is no need to prove whether the owner of the billboard is subjectively at fault, but whether he has "fault" must be proved by himself according to Article 85. He has regularly repaired and maintained the billboard, and it fell off because of a Category 10 typhoon. He did not Wrong.
1. Fault in civil law: it is based on ordinary human standards to deal with the parties involved in the behavior. Compare to determine whether there is a fault. For example, if A throws a watermelon from the fifth floor, then our judgment of whether he is at fault is based on the duty of care that normal people should have for their own behavior. That is, I know that throwing the watermelon from the fifth floor will hit others, which is wrong. ! Then we think A is subjectively at fault. As for throwing a watermelon (tort), B was killed by a watermelon (damage result), and B's death was due to A throwing a watermelon and hitting his head (causal relationship), these factual issues all need to be proved.
2. Article 85 of the Tort Liability Law is a change in the distribution of the burden of proof. You can understand it this way: A was in Africa at the time, so there was no infringement and naturally no fault. The person who was smashed to death was C, so A was not at fault for B. If A’s death was caused by a heart attack, then A was not at fault.
If A cannot prove these contents, then A is at fault. This is what Article 85 of the "Trespass Law" originally supposed to be proved by victim B (A's neglect of management caused the billboard to be in disrepair. It finally fell off due to strong wind) and it is left to A (the owner of the billboard) to prove it in order to balance the evidence (because it is difficult for the victims in some infringement cases to prove it).
To sum up, there is a difference between the "subjective fault" you mentioned and the "fault" in tort liability law. There is no need to prove whether the owner of the billboard is subjectively at fault, but whether he has "fault" must be proved by himself according to Article 85. He has regularly repaired and maintained the billboard, and it fell off because of a Category 10 typhoon. He did not Wrong.