news

한어Русский языкEnglishFrançaisIndonesianSanskrit日本語DeutschPortuguêsΕλληνικάespañolItalianoSuomalainenLatina

in just three days, wuxi man feng ate puffer fish in five hotels in taixing and reported all of them. he then sued the hotel in court, demanding a refund of ten times the price, on the grounds that the chrysanthemum puffer fish is a species that the state has expressly prohibited from selling and eating. recently, modern express reporters learned that the taizhou pharmaceutical high-tech industrial development zone people's court heard the lawsuit in march this year and rejected his request for a "refund of ten times the price".

court trial

a man ate puffer fish five times in three days, reported it and sued for compensation

on the evening of april 23, 2023, feng and his friends went to a restaurant in taixing for dinner. after being introduced to puffer fish as a specialty dish, feng ordered dishes such as chrysanthemum-yellow puffer fish and a bottle of wine, spending a total of 549 yuan. when the puffer fish was served, feng saw something that looked like a liver, and asked the waiter and learned that it was a chrysanthemum-yellow puffer fish liver and male fish eggs.

feng said that he learned from a friend that restaurants were prohibited from selling chrysanthemum-cooked pufferfish, and reported it to the taixing municipal market supervision administration (hereinafter referred to as the taixing market supervision bureau) after eating it. after investigation, the taixing market supervision bureau confirmed the facts and imposed administrative penalties on the restaurant, confiscating 280 yuan of illegal income and imposing a fine of 3,000 yuan.

the man ate puffer fish at one of the restaurants.

then, over a period of three days, feng and his friends ate at five different restaurants in taixing and ordered chrysanthemum-flavored puffer fish in all of them. they also reported the incident to all of them. one of the restaurants reached a settlement with feng, but feng sued the other four restaurants.

"eating puffer fish at the risk of death" is just for 10 times the compensation

feng said that according to the "notice on conditional liberalization of the farming of redfin pufferfish and dark-spotted pufferfish" (no. 53 of the agricultural office of fish breeding in 2016), the country has conditionally opened up the farming of the two pufferfish species, but has made strict requirements on the processing link, clearly stating that poisonous parts and pufferfish toxins must be removed (ovaries, liver, spleen, kidneys, blood clots, eyeballs, gallbladder, stomach, swim bladder, intestines, heart, gills, brain, and blood are all toxic wastes). the edible parts of pufferfish, including skin and meat (bones are allowed), must pass inspection before leaving the factory, and pufferfish livers are not within the scope of open operations.

feng believes that the defendants' restaurants' business of selling chrysanthemum-colored pufferfish, which is expressly prohibited, and using pufferfish and fish livers with toxins as raw materials for making and selling dishes constitutes the business of selling food that is expressly prohibited by the state for special needs such as disease prevention. according to article 148, paragraph 2 of the food safety law, the defendant knowingly sells food that does not meet food safety standards, and the plaintiff has the right to require the defendant to bear the civil liability of "refund one and compensate ten times".

in court, several restaurants argued that since feng ordered puffer fish from five restaurants within three days, it was obvious that he was not ordering it for the meal but was a "professional counterfeiter" in order to get compensation.

feng stated in court that the reason he dined at five restaurants in a short period of time was that he ordered puffer fish specifically for the purpose of cracking down on related illegal activities. however, if these restaurants did not sell puffer fish, he would not order it, and would not sue the restaurants.

obviously beyond the scope of living expenses, the court rejected

the court held that in this case, the defendant restaurant, as a food operator providing catering services, violated relevant national regulations and sold the plaintiff chrysanthemum-colored pufferfish, which had not yet been liberalized for processing and operation and was expressly prohibited by the state for special needs such as disease prevention. this violated the provisions of the food safety law of the people's republic of china, and while accepting the administrative penalty imposed by the market supervision department, it should also bear the corresponding civil liability in accordance with the law. therefore, the plaintiff's lawsuit claiming that the defendant should refund the money for the pufferfish dish was in compliance with the law, and the defendant also expressed his acceptance and support in court.

the taizhou pharmaceutical high-tech industrial development zone people's court heard the case

regarding feng's claim for ten times punitive damages, according to the plaintiff's own statement, the above-mentioned behavior was "specifically for the purpose of combating related illegal activities" and was indeed knowingly buying fake products.

the judge said that, on the one hand, the plaintiff's behavior revealed the objective illegal problems in the field of food safety, and his timely report to the market supervision department caused operators, including the defendant, to receive due administrative penalties. this played a certain positive role in educating and guiding the majority of food producers and operators to pay attention to food safety, produce and operate in accordance with the law, and ensure the "safety on the people's tongues", and it deserves recognition.

on the other hand, judging from the plaintiff’s subjective motivation and behavior, although he ate the chrysanthemum-yellow puffer fish dish after ordering it, it was obviously beyond the scope of daily consumption needs, which was not in line with the legislative purpose and legal spirit of the food safety law of the people’s republic of china to establish a punitive compensation system; in addition, the plaintiff and others, knowing that such food may cause unpredictable risks and harmful consequences to their own health, used their own consumption to prove the existence of actual consumption behavior, and then collected evidence and defended their rights, which should not be encouraged or advocated by the law. therefore, his claim for 10 times compensation is not supported.

the latest judicial interpretation regulates "knowingly buying fake goods"

modern express reporter learned from the court that feng currently has more than 70 food safety lawsuits in the court system. this kind of professional counterfeiter who "knowingly buys fakes" has always been a difficult problem in judicial practice. on august 21, the supreme court issued a relevant judicial interpretation to regulate malicious claims for "knowingly buying fakes".

it stipulates that for those who "knowingly buy fake goods" and maliciously claim high amounts, their requests for punitive damages shall be supported in accordance with the law within the scope of reasonable living consumption needs. for those who "knowingly buy fake goods" and claim after continuous purchases, their requests for punitive damages shall be supported within the scope of reasonable living consumption needs based on the total number of times the same food was purchased. for those who "knowingly buy fake goods" and make continuous purchases and repeated claims, the shelf life, the usual consumption habits of ordinary consumers, the purchase frequency of the purchasers and other factors should be comprehensively considered, and their requests for punitive damages shall be supported within the scope of reasonable living consumption needs.

correspondent wang meng modern express/modern+ reporter mao xiaohua