生产、销售这种遥控器违法吗？对此，南京大学法学院教授宋亚辉表示，通常情况下，判断产品是否违 法可以援引"技术中立"原则。如果此类"万能遥控器"的设计意图就是通过复制或解码信号绕过门禁系 统、帮助使用者规避正常管理措施，超出技术中立的边界，就可能违法。 宋亚辉认为，生产者面临两方面的法律风险：一是知识产权问题，门禁系统、电路解码装置通常受到专 利和商业秘密保护，绕过这些技术的行为本身就是对知识产权的侵犯；二是责任问题，利用设备非法进 入小区、车库，造成财产或人身损害，如果设备生产者因提供工具，与直接侵权人共同构成侵权，那就 需要依法承担责任。 在销售环节，电商平台和卖家同样不能置身事外。电子商务法第三十八条规定：电子商务平台经营者知 道或者应当知道平台内经营者销售的商品或者提供的服务不符合保障人身、财产安全的要求，或者有其 他侵害消费者合法权益行为，未采取必要措施的，依法与该平台内经营者承担连带责任。宋亚辉指出， 平台不能以"只是中介"为由拒绝监管。如果平台"明知或应知"商家在销售违法产品，却没有及时采取下 架、屏蔽等措施，同样要承担法律责任。 轻轻一按，小区大门的闸杆便升起，不刷卡、不登记，也无需保安确认…… ...

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].

（原标题：老人逆行被绊倒去世，家属索赔顺行者60余万元！法院判了） 来源：人民日报、惠州市惠城区人民法院 近日，广东省惠州市惠城区人民法院发文，披露了一起案例。 案情简介 2019年3月8日，王姨打算乘坐火车前往河北省石家庄市，她的儿子小王送她到火车站进站候车。 当天中午12时22分23秒，两人走到火车站二楼进站口西侧人工检票口时，乘客小张手拉行李箱经过安检 后也打算前往此检票口进站。 12时22分27秒，王姨突然转身，逆行而出，想追随小王离开检票口，五步后即22分30秒时，碰到了小张 的行李箱，随即摔倒。 王姨摔倒休息2分钟后，由小王和工作人员扶走离开摔倒现场并自行乘坐火车前往石家庄。 上车后，王姨感到头痛、头晕等严重不适，到达目的地后已意识不清，石家庄市急救中心到火车站接诊 送王姨至某医院救治。经两次转院治疗后，王姨于3月24日死亡，死亡原因为脑硬膜下出血、呼吸衰 竭。 综上，根据《中华人民共和国民法典》第一千一百六十五条第一款，小张对王姨摔倒不存在主观故意， 也不存在过失，不应承担侵权责任。判决如下：驳回小王的诉讼请求。 法院提醒 具有完全民事行为能力的人在人员密集的公共场所行走时，尤其如本案中逆行的王 ...

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]

Core Viewpoint - The court ruled that the defendants, who were fishing companions, did not commit any tortious act and should not bear compensation liability, dismissing all claims from the plaintiff [3][4]. Group 1: Incident Overview - The incident involved three individuals, Zhang Xiaowei, Peng Jun, and Liu Zheng, who went fishing together at Changshou Lake in Chongqing [2]. - Zhang Xiaowei experienced sudden health issues, leading to his death from a myocardial infarction, despite attempts by his companions to assist him [2][3]. Group 2: Court's Reasoning - The court determined that the fishing activity was spontaneous and informal, lacking any organized structure or management, thus the defendants were not considered organizers of the event [3]. - The court found that the companions fulfilled their reasonable duty of care, as the rapid onset of Zhang's condition exceeded what could be reasonably anticipated by the defendants [3]. Group 3: Legal Implications - The ruling emphasized that the mutual assistance obligations among friends in casual social activities should not be overextended, distinguishing them from formal public venues with defined safety responsibilities [4]. - The court highlighted that the defendants were not professional medical personnel and their actions were consistent with common sense and reasonable expectations in such situations [4].

Group 1 - The case involves a fitness center that offers a shooting experience, where participants are required to wear safety equipment in the game area due to the inherent risks of the activities [1] - The court ruled that the fitness center is 70% responsible for the injuries sustained by the plaintiff, while the plaintiff is 30% responsible, and the minor involved bears no liability [1][2] - The court emphasized that the fitness center, as an operator of a potentially dangerous activity, has a duty to ensure participant safety and failed to adequately supervise the environment during the game [1][2] Group 2 - The court noted that the plaintiff, being a fully capable adult, did not take necessary safety precautions despite being warned about the risks, thus sharing some responsibility for the incident [2] - The court determined that the minor, under the supervision of a coach and within the designated area, did not act negligently, and therefore should not be held liable for the incident [2] - The ruling highlighted the importance of operators providing a safe environment, conducting regular safety checks, and ensuring proper monitoring during activities to prevent accidents [2]