Comments the two sides dispute tiger bite to bring more warning-beef怎么读�

Comments: the two sides dispute tiger bite to bring more warning – Feng Haining Beijing zoo tiger bite event once again become a hot spot. The day before, the first female party said in an interview, because of motion sickness is not fight off. The family members questioned the Badaling wild zoo patrol officers failed to get off the rescue. The zoo responded that the staff to get off the bus, but also face the danger of life. Currently, the two sides did not reach an agreement on the amount of compensation. (see the relevant report, the 8 edition of the Japanese newspaper) incident is obviously necessary for the parties to voice. This helps to make the whole thing clearer. It is worth noting that the injured side and the zoo side of the existence of different views on some issues. One of the controversial point is that after the incident, the female husband beat patrol car on both sides of the door, but did not get off the rescue patrol car, and only one driver, no rescue facilities and rescue personnel — patrol patrol equipment seems to be from ruin. But the zoo is that, in the beast area, the park operating norms, the staff should not get off, because the same danger. Zoo side of the argument, I am afraid that many people can not understand, can not help but want to know, what is the responsibility of the patrol, visitors encounter accident how to do? From the common sense of life, patrol officers is to find and solve problems, if found problems not to solve the problem or no problem solving ability, the patrol mechanism didn’t make much sense for visitors, probably the only reminder. In my opinion, whether it is the Badaling zoo, or other similar wildlife park, should learn from the lesson, strengthen the patrol force and capacity building. For example, patrol personnel should be equipped with professional management personnel when the beast, visitors encounter dangerous situations and know how to rescue. At the same time, patrol vehicles should also be equipped with the corresponding emergency equipment. Only in this way can we avoid the tiger bite repeat. The two point is that the zoo has no responsibility. In August, the incident investigation team concluded, tourists did not comply with the provisions of the warning, ignored, or get off, do not belong to production safety accidents. Zoo side that they have no responsibility, and that there is no compensation. But the injured family members do not agree, the reason is that the accident had increased power isolation after security measures and warning signs. That is to say, the family believes that if real security measures in place, there are warning signs near the incident, it is possible to avoid the death accidents — due to security and warning measures in place, the park has a certain responsibility. Frankly, the families of the injured argument also has some truth, because visitors to the zoo, the zoo has the responsibility to come up with one hundred percent measures to protect the safety of tourists, but not to the full responsibility of tourists. As for the issue of compensation, if the two sides can not reach an agreement, might as well take the judicial path to solve, perhaps this event can have greater legal and social significance. This incident once again become a hot spot for tourists, not only once again play the role of warning education, to cultivate the awareness of the rules, the zoo has similar around more warning, because the event fermentation can expose more.相关的主题文章: