|
God and Mother Nature aren't always to blame for lighting strikes. That's the contention of the parents of a 19-year-old student who was killed by lightning while swimming in Pudong last August.
The family is suing the Shanghai Sanjiagang Seaside Holiday Entertainment Co. and its owner Shanghai Pudong Dongfang Restaurant for 500,000 yuan (US$60,241) as compensation for their loss and mental anguish.
On Tuesday, the Shanghai Pudong district People's Court began hearing the case, the first ever lawsuit in China seeking compensation for a death caused by lightning.
Wang Jiaming and five of his friends bought tickets to swim and play at Sanjiagang's man-made pond beside the East China Sea on August 17.
The boys were celebrating their admission to college.
After playing on the beach for a while, the boys decided to go for a swim, even though it had started to rain and lightning could be seen in the distance.
After a sudden lightning strike hit the pond, Wang's friends saw the boy floating unconscious on top of the water. They quickly pulled him from the water and called for help.
He died the next day in hospital. Another girl who was swimming nearby at the time of the lightning strike was also hurt.
Wang's family says Sanjiagang and its owner are to blame for the death as they ignored numerous weather forecasts of possible thunderstorms in the area on August 16 and 17.
They say the company took no efforts to protect its customers from lightning.
"The mismanagement resulted in Wang's death," said Fei Huaping, the plaintiff's attorney. "If it hadn't sell tickets to Wang and his friends based on the weather forecasts, the tragedy would have been avoided."
The defendants say they shouldn't be held responsible.
"Lightning strikes are a natural phenomenon. From June to August last year, there were nine people killed by lightning. No one can foresee the power of lightning, let alone avoid or control it," said Yan Jianming, the defendant's attorney. "However, we have installed a lightning rod, which means we have taken the necessary measures (to protect swimmers)."
No date has been set for the court to announce a decision in the case.
(eastday.com January 16, 2003)
|
