In Lincang, Yunnan, a man’s dog died of poisoning after eating a neighbor’s poisonous bone. He asked his neighbor for compensation. After many attempts at mediation failed, the man sued the court for compensation of 5,000 yuan.
Hua, a man born in 1997, has loved dogs since he was a child. So after getting his first job in life, he immediately went to a pet store and bought a horse dog to take home and raise.
On the night of February 17 last year, Hua’s horse dog died on February 21 after eating poisonous bones.
Afterwards, Hua believed that his beloved horse and dog died after eating the poisoned bones that neighbor Zhao put behind her house. So Hua came to Zhao and asked her to compensate for the loss.
After the two parties failed to reach an agreement, you said something to me. The two failed to reach an agreement on February 27 and March 6 despite the mediation of the village chief.
On March 16, after the two parties failed to mediate at the judicial office, Hua sued the court and demanded that Zhao compensate for economic losses of 5,000 yuan and bear the litigation costs of the case.
In court, Hua said that he saw with his own eyes that the dog had an abnormal reaction after eating the bones it took back. At the same time, I also saw Zhao throwing poisoned bones behind her house.
What Hua means is that he personally saw that the dog started to feel uncomfortable after eating the bone, and this bone came from a neighbor's house.
The neighbor Zhao argued that she did not poison Hua’s dog to death. As for Hua, who has framed her everywhere, he hopes the court will give him an explanation.
Zhao also said that her family was not infested with rats, but that the chickens at home were taken away on the night of the 8th, and the medicine was put in front of the chicken pen door. Hua has no evidence whether the dogs of Hua's family have eaten the medicine she administered, and she has not seen Hua's dogs eat the bones she put in. Moreover, the medicine she administered was an herbal medicine, not rat poison, so she should not be asked to compensate for Hua's losses.
In terms of evidence, Hua failed to submit proof of purchase of the dog, but submitted a transaction record of 960 yuan to vaccinate the dog, while Zhao did not submit any evidence.
According to Article 90 of the "Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on the Application of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China", "Parties shall provide evidence to prove the facts on which their own claims are based or the facts on which they refute the other party's claims. If the parties fail to provide evidence or the evidence is insufficient, In order to prove his factual claim, the party with the burden of proof shall bear the adverse consequences. "
In this case, the evidence submitted by Hua for his claim could not prove that his horse and dog died from eating poisonous bones by Zhao. Therefore, the evidence for Hua's request that Zhao be liable for compensation is insufficient and he should bear the adverse consequences of failure to provide evidence.
According to the relevant provisions of the Civil Code, if an infringement is caused by fault, the liability for compensation shall be due to the fault.
To put it simply, since Hua has no evidence to prove that the death of the dog was caused by Zhao, it cannot be concluded that Zhao is at fault. According to the rules of evidence, if the party making the claim fails to provide evidence for its claim, it will bear the consequences of being unable to provide evidence.
Accordingly, the court of first instance rejected all Hua’s claims after investigation. The case acceptance fee is halved to 25 yuan, which will be borne by Hua.
In fact, whether it is a criminal case or a civil case, the judgment is based on evidence. Personal statements will never be used as a basis for judging. Therefore, this case, Mr. Hua, was destined to lose from the beginning, because he did not even have an inspection report on what caused the dog's death.