Seek hot civil law cases and detailed analysis this year.

Civil jurists comment on 20 10 hot civil cases.

The difference in the protection of civil rights is not bad at all.

Luo Caixia's impersonation case ended in a settlement. "Hard-mouthed" Song Zude bowed his head in front of Xie Jin's 83-year-old widow. "Haiyun Girl" nude photos leaked, suing Baidu for losing money and giving gifts. ...

Among them, there are celebrities and ordinary people, and they all left a deep impression on the 20 10 China civil trial in their own way.

Professor Yang Lixin, director of the Scientific Research Center of Civil and Commercial Law of Renmin University of China, commented on 20 10 hot civil cases one by one when interviewed by reporters on the 29th.

Yang Lixin said that the force of civil law lies in the force of protecting the civil rights of civil subjects. Studying 20 10 hot civil cases, we can find that the right and wrong of protecting the civil rights of civil subjects are within about one millimeter: leaning to the left may be wrong; It may be wrong to lean a little to the right.

Luo Caixia was impersonated.

Trial and acceptance are full of twists and turns.

Case Luo Caixia of Shaodong County, Hunan Province did not enter any university after the college entrance examination in 2004, but her classmate Wang Jiajun was admitted to Guizhou Normal University in her name. A year later, Luo Caixia had to repeat his studies and was admitted to Tianjin Normal University. Wang Jiajun graduated in 2008, but Luo Caixia, who should have graduated in 2009, was deprived of his teacher qualification certificate because his ID card was stolen. He also encountered a series of other difficulties. Wang Jiajun's father, Wang Zhengrong, is the political commissar of the county public security bureau. He used his connections to create conditions for Wang Jiajun to infringe on his right to name. After Luo Caixia sued the Tianjin court, the court actively mediated, which lasted for more than a year and finally succeeded. Wang Jiajun and Wang Zhengrong bear tort liability. Now Luo Caixia has obtained graduation certificate, bachelor's degree certificate and teacher qualification certificate.

Comments on the acceptance and trial of the Luo Caixia case are full of twists and turns. The result of mediation is happy, which embodies the basic spirit of a harmonious society and conforms to the principle that people's courts pay attention to mediation in trying civil disputes. However, there are also problems worth pondering in this case: if this case is treated as an ordinary civil dispute, there will be no such twists and turns in acceptance and trial.

Xie Jin's widow won "Song Dazui"

Criticizing cross-border disclosure of privacy is infringement.

Xie Jin, the director of the case, died suddenly in the hotel when attending the centenary celebration of his alma mater chunhui middle school in Shangyu, Zhejiang Province, and was diagnosed as sudden cardiac death. After Xie Jin's death, Song Zude and Liu Xinda published articles on their blogs to slander Xie Jin. Xu Dawen, the widow of Xie Jin, took the two men to court. The People's Court of Jing 'an District ruled that Song Zude and Liu Xinda lost the case. Song and Liu refused to accept the appeal. On February, 2065438 1 day, the court of second instance made a judgment of "rejecting the appeal, upholding the original judgment, compensating Xu Dawen for various losses of about 290,000 yuan, and publicly apologizing in the newspaper". /kloc-In May of 0/9, the Jing 'an District Court published an Executive Announcement in Jiefang Daily, ordering Song Zude to appear in court on May 24 to perform the judgment. Finally, Song Zude apologized to Xu Dawen.

The commentary should say that the dispute in this case is not to protect the victim's right to privacy, but to protect the right to reputation. How to distinguish between two kinds of tort lies in destroying the evaluation of the right holder or exposing the privacy of the right holder. Xu Dawen said that what the two defendants "revealed" was not a fact, but a fabrication, and the defendants could not prove that the facts were true. Therefore, this is not about privacy, but about evaluation, which infringes Xie Jin's reputation.

I have also read some articles written by Song Zude, who dare to speak out and have no scruples. I wondered at that time why these people whose privacy was exposed didn't stand up and defend their rights! In my opinion, many times, he is really revealing other people's privacy. Social criticism should abide by the rules of criticism, slander others beyond the boundaries of legitimate criticism, or expose others' privacy, all of which constitute infringement and should be liable for compensation. The society welcomes outspoken criticism, but strongly condemns the evil behavior of not caring about the reputation and privacy of others. In particular, it is necessary to affirm the attitude of the court in this case, which is clear about right and wrong, and has a clear stand, so that the infringer can finally understand the mistake and consciously implement the effective judgment. The results of such legal application are particularly commendable!

Female reporter v. Huang Jianxiang's libel case

Behind the defendant's criticism is worthy of appreciation.

Case Huang Jianxiang posted on Sina. The website revealed a sex scandal between a female reporter of a TV station and the former head coach of China's national football team. Lu You, a female reporter of CCTV, thinks that the female reporter referred to in Huang Jianxiang's article is herself, which infringes her right of reputation, and requests the court to order Huang Jianxiang to apologize and compensate 500,000 yuan for spiritual comfort. The court of first instance rejected all Lu You's claims. The final judgment of the court of second instance dismissed the appeal and upheld the original judgment. However, it is confirmed that although the existing evidence cannot confirm that the relevant contents of Huang Jianxiang's articles involved in the case specifically point to Lu You, it does have a certain adverse effect on the comments on other people's private lives and criticizes Huang's improper behavior.

The judgment is based on the plaintiff's insufficient evidence, and the plaintiff is found to have lost the case. There is a standard for determining the responsibility for infringing the right to privacy or reputation: when the content of the report does not specify the specific personality characteristics of the reported characters, as long as the plaintiff can prove that the characters in the report can be basically locked as the plaintiff, it should be considered that the burden of proof of the plaintiff has been completed. Surprisingly, the judgment did not identify the defendant's behavior as infringement, but condemned it. In other words, the court held that the defendant's behavior was illegal, but the evidence was not enough to determine the infringement. There seems to be some other problems hidden between tort liability and court criticism.

The case of indecent photos of the online "Hai Yunnv"

Accurately grasp the scale of infringement or not

In this case, Miss Yin and Zhu broke up because of emotional disharmony, and Zhu uploaded a large number of pictures involving her privacy to the Internet. Miss Yin said that by June 2, 2009, the search website represented by Baidu had not processed the above-mentioned pictures and their privacy information, and the "Baidu Encyclopedia" column opened by Baidu website specially set up the entry "Hai Yunnv", which seriously violated its legitimate rights and interests. Baidu argues that the search engine plays a retrieval role, and it has not published, released or disseminated the photos involved, and the relevant content has been broken before Miss Yin sued. The court held that setting up a special entry in Baidu Encyclopedia to save infringing information infringed on the legitimate rights and interests of the plaintiff, which constituted tort liability and ruled that Baidu lost the case.

The scale of commenting on website infringement and non-infringement should be very accurate. Article 36 of the Tort Liability Law clearly defines the boundaries: the determination of website tort liability, network users and network service providers should bear the tort liability themselves when they commit infringement on the website; Internet service providers shall be jointly and severally liable for the infringing acts committed by network users on their own websites according to the prompt rules and knowing rules.

Prompt rule means that the infringed has the right to notify the Internet service provider of the infringement on the website, and the Internet service provider shall take necessary measures in time for the infringement. If necessary measures are not taken in time, it will be jointly and severally liable for the expanded losses. If a network service provider knows that a network user commits an infringement on his own website and fails to take necessary measures, it constitutes joint liability for infringement.

In this case, Baidu is not a direct infringer, but it failed to pay due attention to the infringement carried out by network users on its own website. In particular, an encyclopedia entry has been set up for the victims, and the text shows the link as "The most complete photo collection of Haiyun Female Photo Gate of Shanghai Maritime University", which obviously belongs to Zhihu.

Who borrowed the pre-marital debt awarded by the court?

But also the protection of personal property.

In this case, the defendant He Mou borrowed RMB 6.5438+0.5 million from the plaintiff Ms. Zhang, but he did not issue a debit note because of his friendship. In February 2008, he and Ms. Zhang registered to get married. During the marriage relationship, both parties made it clear that 6.5438 yuan +0.5 million yuan was the plaintiff's personal property before marriage, and the debt was still valid. Ms. Zhang urged He to pay off the debt, and He issued an IOU, promising to pay it off before June 65438+February 3, 20081. Since then, while earning money to support his family, he has also given Ms. Zhang 65,438+10,000 yuan. However, in June 5438 +2009 10, the two divorced due to emotional disharmony, and he was still more than 50,000 yuan short. After discovering that he did not intend to continue to pay back the money, Ms. Zhang sued. The court held that the money does not belong to the same debt of husband and wife, and should fulfill the repayment obligation as agreed, decide how to repay the loan, and pay interest according to the bank deposit rate for the same period.

In the long-term marriage legislation and judicial practice, more emphasis is placed on protecting the same sex of husband and wife's property, while ignoring the personality of husband and wife's property. The Marriage Law of 2002 changed this practice, giving consideration to the protection of property and personal property.

It is true that the debts borrowed by husband and wife before marriage are, of course, pre-marital property, and there is no confusion of property because of the marriage of both parties. Living together after marriage cannot change the nature of personal property before marriage. During the marriage, the creditor claims to pay off, which is also in line with the law; After the divorce, the creditor claims that the debtor should bear the responsibility for repayment, which should of course be allowed according to law.

However, it should be considered that the haggling over personal property and even debts before marriage may affect feelings. This is a dilemma. This case is exactly the case. The two divorced after less than two years of marriage because of the entanglement of pre-marital debts. When there is a conflict between feelings and personal property, the parties concerned should have a correct choice.

Beijing News v. Zhejiang Internet Infringement Case

Sue once or more than ten thousand times.

In 2008, the Beijing News Agency sued the Zhejiang online website to the Intermediate People's Court of Hangzhou, Zhejiang Province. Because the website reprinted a large number of plaintiff's works without authorization, the plaintiff demanded that the website compensate for the loss of 2 million yuan. After hearing the case, Hangzhou Intermediate People's Court held that there were more than 7,000 works with infringing photos sued by the plaintiff, which needed to be split and filed separately. The Beijing News refused to split the prosecution, so the court decided to dismiss the plaintiff's prosecution. The Beijing News refused to accept the appeal. On July 2 this year, the judgment of the second instance upheld the ruling of the first instance on divisional prosecution.

The problem in commenting on this case is that there is no violation of substantive law at all, but the procedural entanglement-more than 7,000 articles and more than 2,000 photos, which add up to more than 10,000 pieces of infringement, cannot be prosecuted together and should be prosecuted separately.

China's civil procedure law stipulates that there are group litigation and representative litigation. Many cases with the same subject matter and different parties can be merged into one case for the convenience of the parties and the court. The case prosecuted by the Beijing News is not a class action or a representative action, but the same plaintiff and defendant, but there are more infringement facts, which is the legitimate reason for the merger. One prosecution and 10 thousand prosecutions, the parties are exactly the same, which is better or worse, isn't it obvious!

Readers v Zhonghua Book Company for "finding fault award"

Reward "should" and "can" are very different.

In this case, Zhonghua Book Company has publicly promised to give certain spiritual and material rewards to readers who point out publishing errors, and to implement a defective product recall system, and sincerely apologize. After the plaintiff Bai Ping published The Analects of Confucius by Yu Dan, nearly 300,000 words were written by mistake. There are more than 620 mistakes in the book Kangxi Shuntian Mansion Records. After many unsuccessful negotiations, Bai Ping sued, demanding that Zhonghua Book Company pay 65,438+10,000 yuan for fault compensation, recall the books involved, apologize and be rated as "excellent readers" or give other spiritual rewards. The Fengtai District People's Court of Beijing held that the defendant clearly promised to give certain spiritual and material rewards to readers who pointed out the mistakes in publications and should fulfill this promise. However, the plaintiff's claim was not supported because the promised reward content was not clear. However, the plaintiff's rigorous academic attitude and concern for Zhonghua Book Company as a loyal reader are also worthy of recognition. Zhonghua Book Company can give certain spiritual and material rewards to the plaintiff according to its practice. As for the plaintiff's request for the defendant to recall two books, it is not within the scope of court review.

Comment on the defendant's behavior in this case is a reward advertisement with uncertain content. As a merchant, the most important thing for publishers is honesty, trustworthiness and respect for contracts. But at present, honesty seems to be less respected.