Attention, parents!There’s a new trick for kids

2022-08-23 0 By

Parents, APP operator and technology provider were held responsible for each fault. The operator of car-sharing APP platform, based on commercial interests, aims to enhance the convenience of unlocking shared vehicles to increase the utilization rate.In the existing platform security check grade higher facial recognition technology have regulatory possible, ask the platform technology to provide close facial recognition, take the initiative to give up on actual driving personnel for face recognition, the one under the age of 16 one full year of life steal father phone, unlocked and sharing cars will be a line of people crashed into right and right femoral neck fracture of the distal radius,Cause level 9 and level 10 disability.Recently, The People’s Court of Wuhou District, Chengdu city, Sichuan province, closed the case of motor vehicle traffic accident liability dispute, the court based on the fault of the relevant parties and compulsory insurance contract agreed, the defendant Liu mou and his son to bear 60% of the responsibility, compensation plaintiff 62859.97 yuan,The operator and technology provider of the defendant’s car-sharing APP platform shall bear 35% and 5% respectively to compensate the plaintiff RMB 42551.82 and RMB 6078.83, and the defendant’s insurance company shall pay the plaintiff RMB 110,000 within the limit of compulsory insurance.On March 10, 2019, the defendant Liu registered a shared car account by uploading his ID card and motor vehicle driving license, and applied for a car at 3 o ‘clock the next day on the night of March 12.At 8:00 a.m. on the same day, yoo’s son, who is younger than 16 years old, knew that yoo’s phone could unlock a shared car, so he stole the phone and unlocked a car in a nearby store without returning the car.Because using front wheels and the rear wheels need only take pictures photos of login software can open the lock, and 12 in the day, the son of ryu and steal back after take ryu phone unlock, then pick up the students drive to chengdu suburb somewhere on the Internet, about 13 on the way back a food city, from a line of people caused him to fall behind, injuring the bank,The vehicle is damaged, Liu mou until after the accident just know.Traffic police departments that liu’s son should bear all responsibility for the accident.After 23 days of hospitalization, the patient was discharged, and the disability level was identified as grade 9 or 10.The above – mentioned vehicles are insured to hand in strong danger and limit 50 thousand yuan of motor vehicle third party liability insurance.In the first instance, the court held that Liu’s son was a minor student who had not obtained a motor vehicle driving license. If the vehicle involved in the driving case knocked down the pedestrian, he should bear all responsibility for the accident, and the consequences of his infringement on the legitimate rights and interests of others should be borne by his guardian liu.In addition, ryu to own a car share APP download mobile phone should have special management obligation, to his son for more than half a day time to take cell phone usage without effective supervision, the haven’t obtained a driver’s license in his son’s case to use its mobile phone unlocked share cars, the laissez faire phone is losing control of behavior to the traffic accident has certain causal relationship to the case,They shall bear corresponding civil liabilities for the losses of the above-mentioned pedestrians.And the car share APP platform operators in order to improve the sharing vehicles to unlock the convenience, security check of the existing platform level higher facial recognition technology have regulatory possible, take the initiative to give up on actual driving personnel for face recognition, ryu’s son can use ryu phone unlock sharing cars, its behavior obvious faults.The technology provider of the aforesaid platform is aware of the audit blind spot that may be brought about by the closing of face recognition, and has not raised any objection to the closing of face recognition function proposed by the operator and has not cooperated with the operator. The aforesaid two companies shall bear the corresponding civil liability.The son of Liu mou did not obtain driving card to drive a car to produce traffic accident, belong to the business 3 insurance contract to avoid compensate the matter that insurance contract agrees, because this insurance company is in commercial insurance limitation should not bear liability of compensation.Therefore, according to the degree of fault of the relevant parties, the court confirmed that Liu’s son, Liu, the operator of the car sharing APP platform and the technical party shall bear 55%, 5%, 35% and 5% compensation liability respectively, so the above judgment was made in accordance with the law.The judge reminded the judge said the investigation, to undertake the case in the current youth proficiency in use of smart phones generally stronger parents, from the private, such as payment security prevention and protection ways, set the screen saver password is necessary, which can effectively prevent teenagers to use improper adult cell phone use, the relevant security vulnerabilities, also won’t break,There would be no dangerous incidents like the one that caused injuries in this case, which should be one of the most effective prevention methods.Furthermore, Shared bus operators should be legitimate business, not for commercial interests, ignore the significant security hidden danger, danger, the existing technology can do under the condition of safety prevention, in violation of the provisions of relevant requirements, ordering techniques provide close related technical protection measures, the move is not positive offset but deliberately open security holes, will increase the possibility of danger.Therefore, relevant departments should strengthen supervision, urge relevant enterprises to operate in accordance with regulations, and try their best to prevent the occurrence of such improper operations.The legal handling of this case has a certain warning and educational significance for the guardians of minors and the operators of shared cars.Source: People’s Court Daily