Current location - Education and Training Encyclopedia - University rankings - Liu's female college student
Liu's female college student
In the case of Liu's sexual assault, for Liu himself, it can be said that "the death penalty can be forgiven, and the crime of the living is inevitable." In other words, Liu's criminal responsibility may be "rolled up", but his civil responsibility is not easy to "run away".

Here we go again:

On June 24th, 2022, at 1 p.m. local time in Minnesota, USA, Liu v. Liu, a female college student who is also an "alumnus" of the University of Minnesota, held a public hearing in Minneapolis for about 4 hours.

The "female victim" of this incident, that is, the "heroine", did not shy away, but fearlessly "appeared" and attended the trial all the time. The video and written testimony of several witnesses have also been made public.

Although they are all alumni of Mingda University, their kindness and affection are gone. Someone wrote a poem to prove it! As the saying goes:

This is an alumni "get" alumni, you must work hard to do it.

No matter March 7th or February 1 1 day, you just don't look back.

This hearing has a very big "bright spot". In the traditional words of China, it is "a monk can't run away from the temple". If we want to pursue it to the end, Hadron can't run away, and neither can JD.COM.

What happened? The "heroine" not only investigates the responsibility of Liu herself, but also investigates the vicarious responsibility of the employer of the (group) company (this point has been discussed in previous articles, and friends who are concerned can forward it). Employer's vicarious liability is not a new thing, and there are similar provisions in China.

Let's talk about a case that is unfavorable to Hadron:

The laws in the United States are different from those in China. There is an example in front, which is the famous "Simpson's wife killing case" in the United States. Simpson, as a "flow" star at that time, entrusted a team of lawyers named "Dream Team" to defend him in the "wife killing case". Boy, this grandson finally lost his criminal responsibility and personal freedom, his civil responsibility was not less, and his money was lost. Hundreds of millions of yuan's property "defeated" Shui Piao, who just begged in the street.

I wonder what will happen to Brother Dong? The road ahead is a bit confusing.

Therefore, this is a busy month in JD.COM some time ago. Unnecessary subgroups, subsidiaries, branches, etc. Liu, both under his name and as a legal representative, has almost been "replaced". At that time, it was to "guard against the first hand": JD.COM. The employer of COM replaced the responsibility.

However, what should come will come eventually and cannot escape.

According to the local civil law of Mingzhou, the "hostess" proposed JD. And demanded that JD.COM bear punitive damages. That is, when the plaintiff can prove that the defendant and the defendant's employer deliberately ignored the rights and safety of others, the plaintiff can demand punitive damages.

According to the lawyer of the hostess, the defendants (Da Qiangzi and JD.COM) committed sexual assault on the premise of knowing that the hostess never gave her consent, which was a deliberate neglect of the safety and rights of the hostess and met the conditions for compensation.

You know, on April 27, 2020, the judge issued a judgment rejecting JD. COM tries to clarify the vicarious liability of its employers; The judge held that it was reasonable for the "hostess" to accuse the company of vicarious liability for Liu's alleged sexual assault. In other words: demo, want to run? definitely not ...

The jury in this case will make a "verdict" at the end of September or the beginning of 10 at the earliest. I wonder if Xiao Qiang can get away with it? Keep eating melons.

Hey, hey, what is this? This is the tune of the people who eat melons. From 2065438 to September 2008, Liu was sent directly to the local prison by Minnesota law enforcement officers for sexual assault, which caused an uproar.

Who is right and who is wrong?

Right there.