CCTV News:It is not uncommon for network anchors to make gimmicks in the process of live broadcast, one of which is chatting up live broadcast. In order to record people’s reaction in an unexpected state, it often shoots without the consent of the live broadcast object. However, this phenomenon is likely to involve legal issues. Last year, a network platform anchor caused a lawsuit for chatting up people during the outdoor live broadcast. This case was recently pronounced in the second instance in Zhongshan, Guangdong.
This is a surveillance video of a department store in Zhongshan City, Guangdong Province. On the evening of January 7, 2018, a man walked into the mall and made a live webcast with a selfie stick on his mobile phone, but the live broadcast led to a dispute.
Network anchor Ma:I felt that she didn’t want to be on camera, but I didn’t get her on camera either. Then she scolded me, and I was very uncomfortable. Then I said to the live studio, I said, how can there be such a girl?
Mr. Feng, the husband of Ms. Tian:People told you not to shoot, but you still have to shoot there. Do you think you are a little too radical?
Why did the network anchor go to the mall to broadcast live? Who was the woman who clashed with him? How did this dispute happen?
Network anchor Ma:Outdoor test: Eat stranger’s food and walk.
In the video, the anchor who is conducting an outdoor webcast is Ma. On a certain network platform, he is an outdoor anchor with nearly 300,000 fans. In this live video, Ma is conducting a so-called test on the street, and the content is to suddenly eat something from a stranger.
Network anchor Ma:That’s not negotiable. That’s our street test. This uncle is eating. I said I would eat his noodles. Do you think my uncle will get angry? Then everyone will talk about it and I will go.
In the live broadcast, the man who was eating in the store was surprised by Ma’s sudden movements.
Network anchor Ma:I’ve made up my mind. Anyway, even if my uncle scolds me and hits me, it’s all my fault. I’m ready for this. I’ll apologize to him. This is risky, because I think it’s a topic as an anchor.
In order to attract fans to pay attention to the so-called "outdoor test" of live broadcast,
Although Ma knows that his behavior is risky, in order to increase the topicality of the live broadcast and attract the attention of fans, he still made a self-proclaimed "outdoor test" in the live broadcast. The dispute between Ma and the litigant Ms. Tian in the shopping mall also stems from such a live broadcast. So what happened at that time? According to Ma, on the night of the incident, he walked into a shopping mall during the live broadcast. After walking for a while, he met Ms. Tian, the party who was working.
Network anchor Ma:On the live broadcast that day, I took my mobile phone and saw a girl selling clothes. I went there.
Reporter:When you walked up to her with your mobile phone to broadcast live, did you not communicate with her before?
Network anchor Ma:No communication, I am direct, because my live broadcast is random. Because I walk at random and interview passers-by at random.
Reporter:What do you mainly want to communicate with her?
Network anchor Ma:I mainly want to interview her, because it was about 6 o’clock in the evening. At this time, a girl was still at her post and still working. I felt very hard. I wanted to ask her if she was happy at work and whether it was smooth, and then tell the people in the live broadcast room.
Ma went to Ms. Tian who didn’t know, but his conversation was rejected by the other party.
Network anchor Ma:I said hello girl, and then this girl, she was very angry at that time, and then she said, get out of here.
Although the other party refused to be filmed, Ma did not mean to leave. This led to the intensification of the subsequent conflict between the two sides, so why didn’t Ma leave immediately?
Network anchor Ma:Because at that time, she didn’t just politely say, I’m sorry, I won’t give an interview. I was surprised that she didn’t say that, because I talked to many people and I had never seen it like this.
Why did the conflict between the two sides escalate after the live broadcast was rejected?
Ma thinks that she is doing an "interview" with Ms. Tian in the live broadcast. Then how do the party Ms. Tian and her family view this incident, and what kind of conflict did the two sides have afterwards? Because Ms. Tian didn’t want to recall what happened that day, her husband, Mr. Feng, accepted an interview with the reporter.
According to the transcript made by Ms. Tian at the police station, she was selling clothes at the stall on the first floor of the shopping mall at the time of the incident, during which she met Ma with a mobile phone.
Ms. Tian’s husband Mr. Feng:At first, I didn’t strike up a conversation, so I filmed my wife live. When I filmed live, she thought it didn’t matter if you wanted to have some people, but some people felt prejudiced. You took this kind of thing without my permission and filmed it at us. So there are two problems. First, it affects my work, and second, she doesn’t want her privacy to be revealed.
In the face of Ma’s sudden conversation and shooting, Ms. Tian, who is working, expressed strong rejection.
Ms. Tian’s husband Mr. Feng:My wife may have a strong attitude and asked not to shoot. He just said that this person is so angry, so he just said my wife.
Continue to forcibly shoot the other party to grab the phone and ask to delete the video.
Mr. Feng said that Ma ignored his wife’s request and continued to broadcast live in situ, and told the fans in the live broadcast that Ms. Tian had a bad temper. So what kind of conflict did the two sides have subsequently? The transcript shows that when Ms. Tian saw that Ma refused to go away, she went up to grab Ma’s mobile phone.
Ms. Tian’s husband Mr. Feng:I want to delete the video I took of her. Her request is that you take this video of me and delete it. It’s just privacy. It’s like this when it’s exposed.
In this way, the two men had some physical contact in the process of competing for mobile phones, and Ms. Tian was injured. After the incident, she was taken to the hospital.
Ms. Tian’s husband Mr. Feng:The doctor said that her hand might be dislocated or broken. At that time, because my wife was pregnant, she couldn’t make a film if she was pregnant, which means she also had a stomachache.
That night, Ms. Tian was diagnosed as dislocated left shoulder joint. Because she was just pregnant, she went to the hospital for examination the next day, and the orthopedic surgeon suggested that she rest for one month. According to Mr. Feng, his wife has been worried about the impact of the conflict on the health of her children since she left the hospital. Unfortunately, a month later, Ms. Tian had a miscarriage, which became a hurdle for her and her family.
Ms. Tian’s husband Mr. Feng:Telling the truth has a great influence on our whole family, because we are happily pregnant with a child. Maybe for Ma, he didn’t feel his fault, but for his casual video, our whole family spent the whole year in this shadow, including my wife’s shadow over this matter now. It seems that he hasn’t come out from time to time, and he is still mentioning this matter from time to time. It is such a thing.
After the conflict, the two parties conducted mediation at the police station, but the mediation was not successful. Finally, Ms. Tian’s family decided to sue Ma.
Kuang Yong, President of Tanzhou Court of Zhongshan First People’s Court:Ms. Tian and Ma failed under the mediation of the local police station, and then sued the court in January this year, demanding that Ma compensate her for medical expenses, lost time, transportation expenses and so on, totaling more than 20,000 yuan.
Then why did Ms. Tian’s family finally decide to sue Ma after nearly a year?
Ms. Tian’s husband Mr. Feng:This situation may happen to me, and it may happen to another person, so I said at that time that I would still sue him and let him learn a lesson. In the future, how to respect each other when encountering this situation, that is to say, we should give each other a revelation and let the society know what a problem is, because there are too many chaos in this live broadcast, because now it is a society ruled by law, and it was originally a fast network spread. Then everyone has a privacy, you don’t respect each other, you say you are careless, you blog, you click on the traffic, you may achieve what you want to achieve, but he didn’t think about how much harm it would do to others.
Sue the defendant for violating the right to health and demand compensation.
In June this year, the First People’s Court of Zhongshan held a hearing to hear the case. So how will the court determine this dispute?
Kuang Yong, President of Tanzhou Court of Zhongshan First People’s Court:The plaintiff believes that her injury in this incident was caused by the defendant, who violated her right to health and sued the court for compensation. The defendant himself did not appear in court and the defendant’s agent appeared in court. The defendant mainly believes that there is no infringement or infringement of the plaintiff.
The plaintiff, Ms. Tian, believes that Ms. Tian’s personal injury was caused by the defendant Ma, so the plaintiff’s losses should be borne by the defendant. During the trial, the defendant argued that although Ma had a chat with Ms. Tian, his mobile phone camera did not shine on Ms. Tian at that time. However, Ma did not provide the court with the video in his mobile phone.
Kuang Yong, President of Tanzhou Court of Zhongshan First People’s Court:According to the investigation record made by the public security organ, Ma made his own inquiry record, and he was making a live broadcast of video chat from time to time on a network platform. In the transcript, Ma himself stated that he had talked to Ms. Tian, and then Ms. Tian refused.
The court of first instance held that according to the transcripts made by the two parties in the public security organs after the incident, it was confirmed that Ma was taking Ms. Tian and other women as clear direct shooting or live broadcast targets at the time of the incident, and there was a verbal conversation, which was not accidental or unintentional. Ms. Tian was included in the shooting or live broadcast. Under this circumstance, Ms. Tian has the right to refuse and stop Ma’s related behavior.
During the trial, the court presented the transcripts of inquiries and on-site surveillance videos from the public security organs, which restored Ms. Tian’s injury.
Kuang Yong, President of Tanzhou Court of Zhongshan First People’s Court:Ms. Tian was supposed to go up and try to grab Ma’s mobile phone, but the height difference between the two sides was very large, so she didn’t grab it. Instead, during Ma’s avoidance of her, both sides had a physical contact, and the surveillance video on the spot was obscured by obstacles, so it was not clear, but the two sides had physical contact, and it was certain that there was physical contact. After the injury, Ms. Tian went to the local hospital at about 9: 30 that evening. She was diagnosed with dislocation of the left shoulder, contusion of the left shoulder and threatened abortion at the first time. After being hospitalized for two days, I went to another maternal and child health hospital to continue my treatment.
The plaintiff’s injury is the basis of the court’s detailed explanation and acceptance caused by the defendant’s infringement
The First People’s Court of Zhongshan held that this case was a dispute over the right to health, and citizens’ right to life and health was protected by law.
In this case, Ma filmed it during the live broadcast without Ms. Tian’s consent, causing disputes. During the dispute, Ms. Tian was injured. Although Ma did not recognize the fact that Ms. Tian was injured because of her aggression, combined with the existing evidence, Ms. Tian was diagnosed with "dislocation of the left shoulder" at the first time after her injury. The defendant could neither give a reasonable explanation for Ms. Tian’s injury, nor provide sufficient evidence to the contrary. The court accepted the fact that Ms. Tian claimed that her injury and hospitalization were caused by Ma.
Kuang Yong, President of Tanzhou Court of Zhongshan First People’s Court:At the trial, the defendant could not give a reasonable explanation for the reason that the plaintiff was not injured by himself, and also ruled out that the plaintiff was injured by a third party. Then at this time, combining the previous surveillance video and the investigation record of the public security organ, it has reached a highly probable fact-finding standard that whether the defendant is intentional or negligent, it has reached such a high probability that the plaintiff’s injury is caused by the defendant’s behavior.
The First People’s Court of Zhongshan held that according to Article 6 of the Tort Liability Law of People’s Republic of China (PRC), Ma should be liable for the damages caused by Ms. Tian. In the end, the court ruled that the defendant Ma compensated Ms. Tian for lost time and medical expenses totaling more than 11,000 yuan.
Kuang Yong, President of Tanzhou Court of Zhongshan First People’s Court:Citizens’ right to physical health is protected by law. In this case, the defendant filmed without the consent of the plaintiff, causing disputes, which eventually led to the plaintiff’s injury. The defendant committed an infringement of the plaintiff’s right to physical health and should bear this civil liability for compensation according to law.
