[ad_1]
Original title: The highway repeatedly broke the card to escape the tolls and the vehicle was blocked and damaged and wanted to claim the court: rejected!
Recently, the Beijing Chaoyang Court heard such a case. The driver’s vehicle with Zhou’s name had a record of 13 times in more than three months that he drove his card and did not pay. In August last year, when Zhou came across the card again and was stopped by staff, he suddenly started the vehicle, causing the plug to puncture the tire. Subsequently, Zhou sued Beijing Capital Highway Development Group Co., Ltd. Beijing-Shenzhen Highway Branch (hereinafter Shoufa Group Beijing-Shenzhen Branch) in court for compensation for economic losses. Recently, the court heard the case and found that the behavior of the Beijing-Shenzhen branch of the First Development Group in placing the car stop device was reasonable and ruled that all of Zhou’s claims are dismissed.
Facts: 13 times to evade the card by breaking the card and then breaking the tire through the car cap
On August 12, 2019, when Mr. Zhou was driving a vehicle through the Beijing-Chengdu Expressway toll station, he was stopped by staff from the Beijing-Shenzhen branch of the First Development Group. Staff placed a plug under the right front wheel of the vehicle involved, causing the plaintiff to puncture the right front wheel after starting the vehicle and scratching the top of the wheel and hub. Zhou believes that the staff did not use the manual movable stop reasonably. He was unaware that there was a moving stop under the right front wheel and he pushed the vehicle into the moving stop, causing damage to the vehicle. He demanded compensation from the Beijing-Shenzhen branch of the Shoufa Group. Car expenses.
During the trial, the Beijing-Shenzhen branch of the First Development Group provided several audio and surveillance videos of vehicles with Zhou’s name, which showed that the involved vehicle had 13 violations from April 12, 2019 to July 24, 2019. According to records, the vehicle repeatedly evaded charges. When the first interception took place on July 3, the staff did not use the car’s stop device, causing the plaintiff’s vehicle to fail to stop and evade the toll again. To prevent vehicles from entering the card and protect the personal safety of the staff, the Beijing-Shenzhen branch of the First Development Group put up a car stop this time.
Zhou acknowledged the fact that the vehicle was used to evade fees.
The driving recorder video presented by Zhou showed that as Zhou was driving through the toll gate, a staff member wearing a uniform and reflective vest was talking to the driver of the vehicle in front of the vehicle involved, and the other He was wearing a uniform and reflective vest. The staff of, holding the car stop, walked from left to right of the involved vehicle and placed the car stop on the right tire. After the placement, the accused personnel standing on the left front side of the involved vehicle informed the motor vehicle in front of the involved vehicle to leave. The two staff members stood in the front left and right of the involved vehicle in front of the involved vehicle, holding red fluorescent batons.
Video sent by the Beijing-Shenzhen branch of the First Development Group showed that staff called the plaintiff’s window and informed him that he was a fugitive from the Jingcheng Expressway. Zhou quickly rolled up the window and drove forward, and the staff immediately informed him. There was a car stop in front of him. Zhou had already run towards the car stop, and this period lasted only 4 seconds.
The judge asked Zhou why the vehicle suddenly started. Zhou said that he thought the car in front of him had been asked and released, and that he could let it go after questioning. Also, there was music in the car and I didn’t hear what the staff said. However, none of the videos provided by Zhou and the First Development Group showed that the vehicle involved was playing loud music at the time, and the dialogue with the staff was clearer.
The Beijing-Shenzhen branch of the first development group provided evidence that there were warning signs on both sides of the toll gate indicating that the stopper had been activated, you will be responsible for the consequences of breaking the pole and gave advance notice .
Cut:Zhou’s driving behavior is obviously unsafe and unreasonable.
The court held that when he was driving the vehicle involved in the case to pass the toll booth, he knew that the vehicle involved in the case had been involved in card violation and evasion charges, and he should have a reasonable forecast that the vehicle involved in the case he could be arrested due to card violation and evasion charges. , Full cognition and adequate cooperation in problem solving. Now that Zhou knows that the vehicle involved in the case has been stopped by three staff members of the Beijing-Shenzhen branch of the First Development Group, and the two staff members are standing in front of the vehicle involved and it is not safe to start from Suddenly, the staff holds up the video recorder and speaks. During the communication, Zhou only lowered the window for 4 seconds before rolling up the window and suddenly activated the vehicle involved in the case to try to drive away. The staff did not have time to verbally report that the vehicle involved had a cap, so Zhou’s driving behavior was obvious. Unsafe or unreasonable, it should be Zhou’s unsafe or unreasonable driving behavior that caused damage to the vehicle involved. There was nothing improper in the process of self-help actions taken by the Beijing-Shenzhen branch of the First Development Group to protect its legitimate rights and interests, and there was no fault in the damage to the vehicles involved. Relief of rights must be based on honesty and reliability, with reasonableness as the limit and compliance with the law as the end result. Zhou’s claim that the Beijing-Shenzhen branch of the First Development Group should repair the vehicle, compensate for mental damage, relieve money, and compensate for economic losses lacked factual and legal basis, and the court did not support it.
As of press time, Zhou has not appealed to the court. (Headquarters CCTV reporter Li Wenjie and Huang Shuo)
