When the ship was about three or four feet away from its destination, his wife got up and prepared to dock, just as the ferry turned left. Centrifugal force caused her to stand unsteadily, quickly retreated toward the cabin, and fell directly into the river from the open iron gate on the right side of the cabin. At that time, it was in the flood season, and the river surged and the water flowed rapidly. Although the ferry workers struggled to rescue, they did not save their wives. In the next few days, although the ferry workers and the families of the drowning people went downstream to look for it, they did not find the body. Seeing that there was no possibility of survival, the plaintiff Lin applied to the local police station to cancel his wife's account with the village Committee's certificate. After the police station verified the situation, his wife's account was cancelled according to law. The plaintiff Lin believed that his wife's death was directly related to the poor management of the ferry, so he went to the town government where the ferry management agency was located to negotiate compensation, but failed. He asked the court to handle it.

When the court heard the case, according to the fact that the household registration authority had cancelled the household registration and the village Committee's certificate, the town government responsible for ferry management was judged to be liable for compensation. After the judgment came into effect, the court executed the case according to the application of the parties. However, the people's government of the town where the person subjected to execution is located appealed to the court at this time: it is considered that the body of Mrs. Lin has not been found so far in this case, and the local police station only cancelled her account on the basis of the village Committee's certificate, while the court subjectively determined that the town government should be liable for compensation on the basis of the specific administrative act of the public security to cancel the account, which is obviously inappropriate and illegal in procedure. The court must go through the legal procedure of declaring death before it can determine that the missing person is dead. Therefore, it is considered that the case should be put on file for retrial. There are two different opinions on the review of appeal cases. One view is that the complainant has sufficient reasons to complain that it is a fact that the plaintiff Lin's wife fell into the water and disappeared, but her body has not yet been seen, and the missing person cannot be considered dead without legal procedures. It is ultra vires for the public security organ to cancel the account of the missing person only on the basis of the certificate of the village Committee, and its behavior has no legal effect. Before filing a compensation lawsuit, Lin must go through a special procedure to declare the death of the missing person. The case should be put on file for retrial.

Another point of view is that: First, it is a specific administrative act for public security organs to cancel their accounts. The effectiveness of a specific administrative act cannot be denied until it is revoked or changed according to law. Secondly, from the perspective of protecting the legitimate rights and interests of the parties, the public security organ cancelled the account on the basis of the village Committee's certificate, and the court determined the fact that Lin's wife died on the basis of the specific administrative act of the public security organ to cancel the account, and then ruled that the town people's government was liable for compensation. This practice is conducive to effectively protecting the legitimate rights and interests of the parties. If it is handled in accordance with the special procedure for declaring citizens dead, it will take at least two years and four months to enter the proceedings. Then the families of the deceased can neither get effective relief nor get timely spiritual comfort. This is against the spirit of legislation. Third, according to the General Principles of Civil Law, the limitation of action for claiming personal injury compensation is one year, and its legislative intention is to safeguard the legitimate rights and interests of the parties as soon as possible. According to the specific administrative act of the public security organ to cancel the account of the person who has no possibility of survival, the court found the fact that Lin's wife died, and it was correct to sentence the town people's government to bear the liability for compensation. If the case handling procedure is legal and the unit handles it properly, it shall notify the parties to reject the complaint.

The author agrees with the latter opinion. Author: Du Yu court Li Shengyang Fang Hui Yuan.