Who does not allow the entry and exit certificates according to the prevention and control requirements of the epidemic, who is not allowed to enter the community?

During the prevention and control of the new coronary pneumonia, the owner of the community and the community security had a physical conflict due to the issue of the entry and exit certificate, the security guard fell and injured, and the owner compensated the loss of 2,000 yuan. Later, the owner believed that the property company's "chaos" and the security guards deliberately made difficulties, and then sued the property company and security to the court, asking the property company to compensate for the loss, and the security and property companies apologized. The Haidian Court tried to reject the owner's request.

The plaintiff Wang claimed that when he returned home into the community during the epidemic, Zhou security guard Zhou stopped his request to show the entry and exit certificate. Zhou Mou replied that there was no entry permit and could not enter. The two had physical conflicts. Zhou did not stand firmly and lost balance and fell to the ground. He compensated Zhou Mou 2,000 yuan, causing economic losses. Both Zhou and the community property company had faults, and they appealed to the court and submitted the above claims.

The defendant property company argued that Zhou had left. At that time, when Wang returned to the community, the security guard checked the entry and exit certificates. Wang took the access card and insisted on entering. The two sides had physical contact, causing the security guard to be injured. The property company strictly managed in accordance with relevant requirements during the prevention and control of the new crown pneumonia.

The defendant Zhou did not make a defense.

The court found out that during the incident, during the prevention and control of the new crown pneumonia, Wang did not bring an in -in -and -in -and -out certificate at the entrance of the community. Word conflict. According to Wang's self -report, in the process of communication, others enter and leave the community to open the door. In the case of not communicating with the security personnel to solve the verification, Wang wanted to enter the community and was stopped by others with others. Both sides had physical conflicts. The two parties reached a mediation agreement.

After the trial, the court believed that the root cause of the conflict between Wang and the community security Zhou was not carrying the entry and exit certificate. In the process of performing his duties, Zhou did not allow him to enter the community in accordance with the requirements. The behavior of Zhou and the property company advocated by a certain claim did not have any faults, and there was no infringement. Therefore, the court did not support all the claims of Wang's lawsuit. The court eventually rejected the plaintiff's complaint.

French officials say:

Article 1,165 of the Civil Code stipulates that if a perpetrator damages the civil rights and interests of others due to fault, it shall bear the liability for infringement. At the time of the incident in this case, during the prevention and control of the new crown pneumonia's epidemic, after Wang's residential community was uniformly distributed and issued, it should strictly follow the requirements of the epidemic prevention and control and bring the above documents. In this case, Wang should communicate well with the security guard and property company, verify and solve the problem of entry and exit. With the situation that it has not yet been communicated, it is subjective to enter the community when others enter and exit the community. The intention of failing to comply with the requirements of the epidemic prevention and control, this behavior directly triggered the result of the property company as a security guard Zhou, and the result of physical conflict between the two parties. Claims.

(The names in the text)

- END -