Core Viewpoint - Zhongshan Securities, a subsidiary of Jindong Co., is embroiled in a legal dispute involving approximately 490 million yuan, stemming from a financial fraud case that began 12 years ago [1][8]. Group 1: Lawsuit Details - The lawsuit was initiated by China Everbright Bank's Changchun branch against five defendants, including Zhongshan Securities, for tort liability [2][8]. - The case traces back to 2013 when Liu Xiaoyi, the legal representative of Liuhe Juxinyuan Rice Industry Co., misrepresented the company's financial status to secure a loan of 350 million yuan [3][4]. Group 2: Fraud Mechanism - Liu Xiaoyi collaborated with Zhang Lei, an assistant manager at Everbright Bank, to fabricate financial documents and mislead the bank into approving the loan [3][4]. - The fraudulent scheme involved a complex flow of funds, where Everbright Bank deposited 350 million yuan into China Merchants Bank, which was then transferred through Zhongshan Securities to Ping An Bank, ultimately reaching Liu's company [4][6]. Group 3: Legal Proceedings - After the fraud was uncovered in 2014, criminal charges were filed against Liu and Zhang, resulting in severe penalties, but only a small portion of the embezzled funds was recovered [6][7]. - In 2015, Everbright Bank filed a civil lawsuit against China Merchants Bank to recover the funds, but the Supreme Court ruled that the original agreement was invalid due to its fraudulent nature [7][8]. Group 4: Current Developments - In 2026, Everbright Bank reinitiated legal action, this time claiming tort liability and seeking a total of 489 million yuan, including principal and interest [8]. - The outcome of this case remains uncertain, with questions surrounding the liability of the involved banks and the potential for Everbright Bank to recover its losses from a decade-old fraud [9].

（来源：河北日报） 原告购置的新房本计划用作孩子的婚房，不料新房分水器在冬季突然发生漏水，导致新房以及楼下多家 邻居房间被水淹。原告在赔付完邻居的损失后，认为小区物业公司、房地产开发公司、工程建设集团三 方对房屋设施维护、质量保障均负有责任，并多次寻找三方协商解决问题，要求共同赔偿其损失。但三 方就经济损失的赔偿问题未能达成一致，原告遂向法院提起诉讼。 受理案件后，承办法官仔细梳理案件细节，多次组织四方当事人进行沟通，耐心倾听诉求与辩解，从法 律规定、责任划分、证据材料等方面逐一分析，经过法官耐心解释和多轮调解，最终各方当事人达成一 致意见，签订了调解协议并当场履行赔偿义务。 婚房漏水起争议 高效解纷护权益 2025年10月，张家口市万全区人民法院成功调解一起因房屋分水器漏水所引发的侵权责任纠纷案件，使 四方当事人从最初的剑拔弩张到最终的握手言和，赢得当事人好评。 此次调解，既高效维护了当事人的合法权益，也让物业公司、房地产开发公司、工程建设集团三方全面 了解了自身的法定责任及义务，实现了"案结事了人和"的良好效果。 转自：河北日报 ...

本文转自【CCTV今日说法】； 在出租的房子里 意外不幸降临 承租人爽快赔偿后 出租人也要担责？ 第三人在出租屋内发生事故 综上所述，郑某亲属要求出租人张某支付郑某死亡产生的死亡赔偿金、丧葬费、精神抚慰金等费用的诉 讼请求并无事实及法律依据，故法院对其诉讼请求不予支持。最终，法院判决驳回了郑某亲属的诉讼请 求。判决后，双方均未上诉，该判决现已生效。 法官：出租人应尽可能排除隐患 承租人应提高安全意识 承租人赔偿30万元 2025年6月，张某与高某签订《租赁合同》，约定高某租赁张某楼房用于酒店经营，租赁期限3年，即自 2025年6月至2028年6月。2025年7月某天，承租人高某雇佣郑某等四人到该楼房从事装修工作。郑某在 该楼房后阳台清理装修垃圾时，不慎坠落，后经治疗无效死亡。派出所在接警证明中载明："郑某在后 阳台清理装修垃圾时，将阳台与其下方河道之间直梯的入口铁板掀开，掀开后不慎坠至河道边，高度约 5米，后送至山东省平邑县人民医院，下午三时许宣布死亡。" 事故发生后，承租人高某与死者郑某亲属签订《意外死亡和解协议书》。协议约定，高某一次性支付赔 偿金30万元，包括死亡赔偿金、丧葬费等一切费用。高某已按照协议 ...

Core Viewpoint - A public transportation liability case in Beijing highlights the responsibilities of both the bus company and passengers regarding safety during transit [1][4]. Group 1: Incident Details - The incident occurred when a passenger, Zhao, boarded a bus and the driver closed the doors and started the vehicle within two seconds without checking if passengers were stable [2][3]. - Zhao attempted to grab the handrail but lost balance and fell, resulting in a fractured bone and medical expenses exceeding 40,000 yuan [3]. Group 2: Court Ruling - The court ruled that the bus company was 80% liable for the incident, ordering them to compensate Zhao over 70,000 yuan for medical and other related expenses [1][2]. - The court noted that the bus driver failed to ensure passenger safety before starting the vehicle, which was a significant factor in the accident [3]. Group 3: Legal Implications - According to the Civil Code, carriers are strictly liable for passenger injuries unless the injury is due to the passenger's intentional actions or gross negligence [4]. - The case emphasizes the need for bus drivers to ensure passengers are secure before moving and for passengers to take reasonable precautions for their safety [4].

Core Viewpoint - The article highlights the increasing number of traffic accident liability disputes in Beijing's Xicheng District, emphasizing the need for all traffic participants to adhere to traffic regulations and enhance self-protection awareness to prevent accidents [3]. Group 1: Traffic Accident Liability Disputes - From January to November this year, the number of traffic accident liability disputes received by Xicheng Court increased by 32.03% compared to the same period last year [3]. - Among these, motor vehicle traffic accident disputes rose by 27.1%, while non-motor vehicle disputes surged by 60.98% [3]. Group 2: Electric Bicycle Modifications - Modifications to electric bicycles for speed and functionality can lead to significant liability issues, as demonstrated in a case where a modified electric bicycle resulted in the rider being deemed 80% responsible for an accident [4]. - The court found that the modified bicycle exceeded safety standards, lacking necessary components and exceeding weight limits, which contributed to the accident [4]. Group 3: Safety Belt Usage - A case involving a passenger not wearing a seatbelt in a taxi during an accident resulted in the court ruling that the passenger must bear 20% of the damages due to their failure to take reasonable safety measures [6]. - The court emphasized that wearing a seatbelt is a simple yet effective way to prevent injury during accidents [6]. Group 4: Workers' Compensation and Liability - A worker injured in a traffic accident while commuting was recognized as having a work-related injury, and the court ruled that the responsible parties must compensate for damages despite the worker receiving salary during the recovery period [7]. - The ruling clarified that receiving workers' compensation does not exempt the liable parties from their responsibility to compensate for damages [7]. Group 5: Non-Motor Vehicle Insurance - The article discusses the lack of mandatory insurance for non-motor vehicles, highlighting the risks associated with low insurance coverage among individual riders [8]. - It suggests that insurance companies should develop a multi-tiered insurance system for non-motor vehicles to mitigate risks and encourage riders to purchase third-party liability insurance [8].

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the emergence and implications of "universal remote controls" that can bypass security systems in residential areas, raising concerns about security and legality [1][2][4]. Group 1: Product Description and Functionality - The "universal remote control" can replicate signals to control various access points like gates and doors, allowing unauthorized access to restricted areas [1][2]. - These remotes are sold online at prices ranging from a few yuan to hundreds, with some listings indicating high sales volumes and user comments suggesting their use for bypassing security [1][2]. Group 2: Legal and Ethical Concerns - The legality of producing and selling these remotes is questioned, particularly if their design is intended to circumvent security measures, which could violate intellectual property laws [2][3]. - Sellers and e-commerce platforms may face legal responsibilities if they knowingly sell products that compromise safety or violate consumer rights [3][4]. Group 3: Recommendations and Responsibilities - Producers should enhance legal awareness and refrain from selling products with illegal functionalities, while sellers must verify the legitimacy of their products and cannot rely solely on disclaimers for protection [4]. - E-commerce platforms are urged to fulfill their regulatory obligations by monitoring and removing illegal products from their listings [4].

Core Viewpoint - The court ruled that the parties involved in the drone pesticide spraying incident are liable for damages due to negligence, with a compensation amount of 31,000 yuan to the affected farmers [1][2]. Group 1: Incident Overview - A case was adjudicated in Urumqi, Xinjiang, where improper pesticide spraying by a drone led to significant damage to neighboring farmland, specifically 20 acres of winter melons [1]. - The affected farmers, Xiao Long and Xiao Niu, sought compensation after their crops exhibited severe damage, which was confirmed to be linked to the pesticide application [1][2]. Group 2: Legal Proceedings - The court identified two main issues: the causal relationship between the pesticide spraying and the crop damage, and the liability of the parties involved [2]. - The court accepted the findings of a qualified assessment agency that established a causal link between the drone's pesticide application and the damage to the winter melons [2]. Group 3: Liability and Compensation - Both Xiao Hu (the contractor) and Xiao Yang (the drone operator) were found to have acted negligently, leading to the court's decision to hold them each responsible for 50% of the compensation [2]. - The ruling emphasized that Xiao Yang failed to exercise due caution during the pesticide application, while Xiao Hu did not adequately inform neighboring farmers about the spraying [2].

Case Summary - The case involves an incident at a train station where an elderly woman, referred to as Wang Yi, fell and later died due to complications from her injuries. Her son, Xiao Wang, claims that another passenger, Xiao Zhang, is at fault for the incident and is seeking compensation [4][5]. Incident Details - On March 8, 2019, Wang Yi was at the train station with her son when she unexpectedly turned around and collided with Xiao Zhang's luggage, leading to her fall [2][3]. - After the fall, Wang Yi experienced severe symptoms and was later diagnosed with subdural hematoma and respiratory failure, resulting in her death on March 24, 2019 [4]. Legal Proceedings - Xiao Wang argues that Xiao Zhang should bear at least 60% of the responsibility for the incident, seeking over 600,000 yuan in damages for medical expenses, funeral costs, and emotional distress [4][5]. - Xiao Zhang contends that he did not act negligently and should not be held liable for Wang Yi's fall, as he was moving normally through the station [5][6]. Court Ruling - The court determined that Wang Yi had a duty to exercise caution while moving in a crowded area and that her sudden reversal was a significant factor in the incident [5][7]. - The ruling stated that Xiao Zhang did not exhibit any negligence or foreseeability regarding Wang Yi's actions, thus he was not held liable for her injuries [7]. Court's Advice - The court emphasized the importance of individuals in public spaces, especially the elderly, to maintain heightened awareness and caution to avoid accidents [9][10]. - It also highlighted the responsibility of accompanying family members to provide adequate supervision and support to elderly individuals in public settings [9].

Case Overview - The case involves an incident at a train station where an elderly woman, Wang Yi, fell after colliding with a passenger's luggage while attempting to leave the ticketing area [4][5] - Wang Yi suffered severe injuries leading to her death, prompting her son, Xiao Wang, to sue the other passenger, Xiao Zhang, for compensation [5] Court Judgment - The court determined that Wang Yi had a responsibility to exercise a higher degree of caution while moving against the flow of pedestrian traffic [8] - It was concluded that Xiao Zhang, as a normal passenger moving forward, could not have anticipated Wang Yi's sudden reversal and therefore should not bear liability for the incident [9] - The court ruled in favor of Xiao Zhang, dismissing Xiao Wang's claims for compensation [9] Legal Implications - The ruling emphasizes the importance of personal responsibility in public spaces, particularly for individuals who may be more vulnerable, such as the elderly [11] - It highlights the need for accompanying family members to provide adequate supervision and support to prevent accidents [11][12]

Core Points - A farmer in Xinjiang suffered significant economic losses due to misleading recommendations from a pesticide sales company, resulting in a court ruling that the company must compensate the farmer for over 300,000 yuan while the farmer bears 290,000 yuan of the loss [1][2] Group 1 - The farmer purchased a pesticide intended for apple trees, which was incorrectly recommended by the sales personnel, leading to the death of nearly all crops on 100 acres of land [1][2] - The court confirmed a direct causal relationship between the use of the inappropriate pesticide and the crop failure, holding the sales company accountable for its major fault in the recommendation process [2] - The farmer, despite having some planting experience, failed to verify the product's suitability, which contributed to the losses, leading to a shared responsibility ruling by the court [2]