Why do I take a clear-cut stand, stick to the "Tiger School" and criticize the "Notre Dame School"

Director, Communication Law Research Center, China University of Political Science and Law, Zhu Wei

No one can protect him from harm.

No one will protect those who kill themselves.

-"Game of Thrones"

The incident of tiger wounding in Youngor Zoo in Ningbo continues to ferment, reflecting twists and turns of public opinion, which can be roughly divided into three categories: the so-called "tiger school", "Notre Dame school" and "ticket school".

Most netizens, including myself, belong to the "Tiger School":

1. The tiger is innocent;

2. The zoo is not responsible;

The deceased should be responsible for the infringement.

The main basis is:

1. Article 27 of the Tort Liability Law stipulates that the damage is intentionally caused by the victim, and the actor shall not be liable;

2. Article 8 1 of the Tort Liability Law states that the zoo shall not be held responsible if it can prove that it has fulfilled its management duties;

3. The legal provisions of the Wildlife Protection Law on the killing of key protected animals;

4. Article 3 1 of Tort Liability Law stipulates that the damage in emergency avoidance shall be borne by the person who caused the danger.

Attention, everyone, according to Article 3 1 of Tort Liability Law, both the zoo and the deceased are victims, and the tigers lost by the zoo should be compensated by the deceased's estate.

Notre Dame is an inevitable phenomenon in almost all public events. This view has not changed much. Respect this, respect that, respect everything except the law, mainly:

1. The deceased is big, so everyone should respect it;

2. It's a pity that the deceased has this indescribable tragic color after the background is dug deep;

If there is damage, there must be compensation, and where people die, they must pay.

"Pugui School" is a school of events "sublimation". It seems that they all come from sociology and philosophy, care about the vegetable market, never "talk about the matter" and always "talk about him from left to right". The main performance is:

1. You tell him about the law, and he tells you that air tickets are expensive;

2. You talk to him about national conditions, and he talks to you about foreign countries;

You talk to him about economy and he talks to you about morality.

Anyway, the intersection that I never talk about is unfathomable. I can't reach the knowledge level of this school, so I'll leave for the time being.

Why am I a tiger? The reasons are as follows.

Notre Dame is a school where the rule of law is chaotic. The result of muddle is to ignore the rule of law and repeat the tragedy.

The essence of market economy is the rule of law economy, and everyone is equal before the law. The law must be rigid enough, "benevolence and righteousness do not divide troops, benevolence and righteousness do not divide wealth", and sufficient legal rigidity can show the majesty of the law. The majesty of the law is strong enough to form the rule consciousness of the whole society. How can we come to Fiona Fang without rules?

You can't run the traffic lights, stop on the highway, cross the road is very dangerous, you can't drive after drinking, you can't occupy the emergency lane, and you can't hit the high beam when driving in the city. These are all common sense of traffic, but so many people don't obey them, and they are 100% responsible for accidents, and even go to court to make law-abiding people spend money and time with them. Many scholars, including me, don't understand some provisions of the Road Traffic Safety Law. Why should pedestrians 100% be responsible for motor vehicles hitting pedestrians who violate the rules, and they should bear part of the compensation? It is this law of "peace" and "Notre Dame" that has created a large number of unruly pedestrians and individuals touching porcelain, which ultimately hurts the whole society.

Buy tickets when you should, just like the sun rises in the east. Not buying tickets or evading tickets is illegal in itself. Tickets are expensive, so you don't have to go. This is not the same thing as not being able to afford to eat and look down on illness. Going to the zoo is not necessary. There is a zoo in my hometown Dandong. I have been there since I was a child. When I was a child, I sold tickets. Admission is free now. In contrast, what is the result of free? That is, the zoo is fully open to operators, with all kinds of vendors, toys and animals. The Dandong Zoo now is much worse than when I was a child.

The zoo does not need tickets, which means that the zoo must bear the operating expenses, and it will operate in disguise, ignoring its main business. Going to the zoo will become going to amusement parks, morning markets, big parties and kindergartens. I believe most people still want to spend some money to see the real zoo. This is like a college education now. University is an elite education. Nowadays, many universities are engaged in marketization, running schools in the market and teaching in the sea. Universities that gradually ignore basic teaching functions deserve vigilance.

Notre Dame mistakenly let "warmth" shine on illegal acts, and conniving at illegal acts itself is harmful to social law-abiding.

A harmonious society should be based on the rule of law. Human feelings and law, ethics and law, morality and law, compassion and law are not exclusive. Only when there is softness and rigidity can there be both rigidity and softness. Now, just like individual stars now. Men are not like men, and women are not like women, that is, they are neither rigid nor soft. It's hard to tell right from wrong when you mix things up. It is right to sympathize with the death and injury of tigers in Badaling Wildlife Park. "Compassion is the purpose of benevolence." However, right and wrong should be clarified. The perpetrators of the Badaling incident were not tigers, but people who got off the bus illegally, ignored common sense and were self-righteous. Some media exaggerate this sadness, in exchange for the fact that the parties in the media account for an absolute majority of the accusations against the zoo, but they rarely hear their regret that their reckless behavior led to the death of their loved ones, not to mention the damage caused by her behavior that led to the closure of the park for many days. Shouldn't this be a crime?

How did a tiger in Ningbo hurt people? A person's recklessness led to a normal and vibrant tiger being shot in his own territory because of his nature of guarding territory. Although he paid the price for his reckless behavior, what about the damage to the zoo? What about the bystander's panic? What should I do if I lose my closeness? Seems to have been forgotten. To put it to the extreme, how does a tiger feel? How much did animals pay for human stupidity when they were born at the wrong time? Today, some people still say that human life is noble and animals are "things". Legally, it is, but emotionally, it is really acceptable.

Before the Supreme Court, there was a judicial interpretation that if something memorable was damaged, it could claim compensation for mental damage. But when the tort law came out, the previous judicial interpretation didn't seem very good. Only personal injury can claim compensation for mental damage. A year ago, I saw a pet dog killed by a car on the roadside. I saved it, but it didn't survive in the end. I saw with my own eyes the grief and indignation of the puppy owner. This is an ordinary puppy, not worth a few dollars, but its owner is in great pain and has great mental damage, but the law does not support compensation for mental damage. Is this fair?

Raising these tigers is really the responsibility of zoo keepers. How can they get along day and night without feelings? Have you ever considered the feelings of the breeder in order to save people? Helpless, angry, or should I apologize? The truth is not just what Notre Dame said.

Let's talk about fair responsibility. The Tort Liability Law has been published for so many years, and I have repeatedly said that fair liability can only be applied if both parties are not at fault. Although I have always had serious objections to fair responsibility, I think it is a muddle, but I still have to respect legislation. The incident of tiger wounding in Ningbo is by no means the scope of fair responsibility. There are violations and mistakes here. Of course, fair liability does not apply.

Some people say that the zoo may also be at fault. Before we come to a conclusion, let's put this question aside for the time being. Even if the zoo is at fault, the deceased is also at fault, which is stipulated in Article 26 of the Tort Liability Law. If both parties are at fault, the tort liability may be reduced. This is the category of "negligence" and must not be confused with the fair liability in Article 24 of the Tort Liability Law.

Rule consciousness and legal thinking are an important lesson that our society must experience.

If the biggest revelation of the tiger wounding case in Ningbo Zoo is the awareness of rules. The reason why we should talk about rule consciousness alone is mainly because of the special situation of our society.

Let me tell you an anecdote first.

When the draft tort liability law was discussed, I was still a doctor at Renmin University Law School. On one occasion, the college invited some European experts to discuss the draft tort law. At that time, China scholars were arguing about who should bear the responsibility for "throwing objects at high altitude". High-altitude throwing refers to someone upstairs throwing something downstairs and hitting someone, but I don't know who threw it and who should bear the responsibility.

Some scholars believe that if you can't find the person who threw it, you can't let anyone take responsibility. Some scholars believe that if you can't find someone to throw, you should let the property bear the responsibility. Some scholars also believe that if we can't find out who threw it, besides proving that we didn't throw it (which is difficult to prove), the whole building should be jointly and severally liable for compensation. These three viewpoints were supported by domestic precedents at that time.

At the meeting at that time, someone raised the question of "throwing objects at high altitude" to German professors. After listening to the translator, the German hesitated for a moment and asked, Why did the thrower hit the people below? We replied, I don't know. Then China scholars asked, how is this situation regulated in Germany? The Germans replied that the rare precedent in Germany is only "falling objects" without "throwing objects", and then asked, how much is this in China? China scholars immediately blushed, saying that there were not so many, not so many. What was the result? Not that much. Finally, it was written into the Tort Liability Law. Article 87 of China's Tort Liability Law stipulates that if the infringer cannot be determined by throwing an object from high altitude, he shall be liable for compensation unless he can prove that he is not an infringer. This law is indeed full of "warmth", but it also reflects where the moral level of our citizens is. Can you throw rubbish at will? Couples fight and throw ashtrays downstairs? (This may be a real case)

It can be seen that in our country, there are some moral things that cannot be solved by law, because there are too many. Originally, "law is the lowest level of morality", according to talk.an excellent principle, morality and law are connected, not included. But in our country, this is not easy to distinguish. For another example, going home often is a sign of filial piety. In our tradition, filial piety has always existed in all virtues, but now legislation should also be written into the law on the protection of the rights and interests of the elderly.

Being gentle, respectful, thrifty, caring, humble, wise and trustworthy, being filial, loyal, humble and honest, we should not only implement it by law, but also live in our hearts. This is the basic principle of our life. But our current law is to legalize morality, and the problem is not big. It is right to emphasize the legalization of morality in the transitional society, but on the other hand, the moralization of law is absolutely impossible.

Law is a rule, it is rigid, and it depends on coercive force; Morality is traditional and flexible, depending on public opinion and clan. Moral rule of law is to let the law stand guard for morality when the ceremony breaks down. This is temporary and morality needs to be restored in the future. Attention, attention, if the law is moral, this society will be finished, all laws will become human feelings, and all rigid things will become flexible and muddy.

Since the tiger in Ningbo hurts people, since there are hard laws, we can't muddle along, and Notre Dame must retreat to one side. Whether the zoo takes responsibility should be strictly in accordance with the law. The court is not a mediator, and the court must believe in the law.

The awareness of rules can't be achieved overnight, and we can't just preach, but also rely on the lessons of blood. Badaling and Ningbo, less than twice a year, at least learned the lesson of blood. Then there is the action of the court, which must show rigidity and separate law from morality. Let rigidity show the awareness of rules and let society understand the cost of ignoring rules, and life will be more dignified.

How can we show the warmth of compassion when dealing with such incidents?

First, the zoo can compensate the dead in a humanitarian spirit. Attention is compensation, not compensation.

Second, the zoo can give up the right of compensation for the deceased's estate in order to avoid danger urgently.

Third, society can offer condolences and donations to the deceased in various forms.

Fourth, properly bury tigers, and don't illegally dispose of tiger skin, tiger meat and tiger bones.

Fifth, the media should publicize widely, improve the awareness of rules and the spirit of rule of law in the whole society, and avoid such incidents from happening again.

Tiger, go at ease. Let's finish your unfinished business-guard rules.