Two people clashed on the street, and one suddenly picked up a hammer to attack the other. In a critical moment, a kind-hearted passerby tackled them down, avoiding a possible tragedy. Unexpectedly, this passerby was later sued by the perpetrator, seeking compensation of over 120000 yuan for medical expenses, nutritional expenses, and other losses. Recently, the reporter learned from the Baoshan District People's Court in Shanghai that in the health right dispute case involving the determination of legitimate defense, the court determined that the behavior of pedestrians belongs to legitimate defense and does not need to bear civil liability. The judgment has now come into effect. A heated argument broke the original tranquility in front of a street facing store in Baoshan District, Shanghai, on a day in October 2023, when passersby stopped the dispute and became defendants. The shop owner Qiu Laohan and Mr. Chu had a quarrel over trivial matters, and the two of them refused to compromise, and their emotions became increasingly agitated. Gradually, there were people stopping around and persuading, but both sides still refused to back down. The argument quickly escalated into pushing and then into physical conflict. At this moment, Mr. Qiu, the son of Mr. Qiu, rushed out of the shop. Instead of persuading him, he punched Mr. Chu in the head. Mr. Chu stumbled backwards, but Mr. Qiu still didn't give up. He bent down and picked up a hammer from the ground, ready to swing it towards Mr. Chu. Just as the hammer was about to strike, a figure pounced from the side. It turned out to be Mr. Quan, who was passing by here. He was originally trying to intervene, but when the situation suddenly took a turn for the worse, he didn't hesitate to throw Mr. Qiu to the ground and tightly hugged him from behind, holding the hammer in his hand tightly. A conflict was stopped and Mr. Chu was safe. However, during the process of falling to the ground, Mr. Qiu's palm holding the hammer was injured by the handle of the iron hammer. At the end of 2023, Mr. Qiu sued Mr. Quan to Baoshan Court for damages to his right to health, demanding compensation of over 120000 yuan for various losses such as medical expenses, nutrition expenses, and lost work expenses. I went to persuade him to fight. At that time, the situation was urgent, and I tackled him (Mr. Qiu) to prevent him from hurting people. ”During the trial, Mr. Quan insisted that his actions constituted acts of bravery and righteousness, and were reasonable actions taken in emergency situations to prevent more serious harm from occurring. He should not bear any liability for infringement. According to the presiding judge Ma Teng in this case, the act of self-defense did not exceed the necessary limit. To constitute legitimate defense, five statutory requirements must be met: the existence of illegal infringement, the timely nature of the defensive act, the legitimate purpose of the defense, the defense must be carried out against the perpetrator himself, and the means of defense do not exceed the necessary limit. According to the Criminal Law, actions taken to stop illegal infringement in order to protect the state, public interests, personal, property, and other rights of oneself or others from ongoing illegal infringement, which cause harm to the perpetrator, are considered legitimate defense and do not bear criminal responsibility. According to the Civil Code, those who cause damage due to legitimate defense shall not bear civil liability. The essence of justifiable defense is to grant citizens the right to private remedies when public remedies cannot intervene in a timely manner. Its purpose is to avoid illegal infringement of legitimate rights and interests, and to require necessary, reasonable, and moderate protective measures to be taken in emergency situations to prevent the situation from further deteriorating. ”Ma Teng said. After trial, the court found that on the day of the incident, the dispute between Mr. Qiu and Mr. Chu was originally a verbal altercation. Mr. Qiu's intervention not only failed to ease the situation, but also rapidly escalated the conflict. What's even more serious is that he picked up the hammer, and the sudden escalation of illegal infringement against Mr. Chu has formed a real and urgent danger. A hammer hitting the head can easily cause brain injury, and in severe cases, it can be life-threatening. ”Ma Teng's analysis pointed out that "in the critical situation at that time, the measures taken by Mr. Quan were a reasonable and necessary choice to stop the illegal infringement, and his defense method and degree did not exceed the necessary limit, which meets the elements of legitimate defense." Therefore, the court legally determined that Mr. Quan's behavior constituted legitimate defense, and for the situation where Mr. Qiu's palm was injured, Mr. Quan did not need to bear civil liability. Ma Teng explained, "The law regards justifiable defense as a reason for exemption. On the one hand, it is a severe denial of violent infringement. The perpetrator of unlawful infringement should bear the risk of the damage caused by their own illegal behavior and cannot be transferred to the justifiable defender. On the other hand, it is also a recognition and encouragement of those who act bravely in the face of justice. In times of crisis where public relief cannot be sought in a timely manner, citizens who step forward to stop unlawful infringement and protect the safety of others should be recognized and supported by the judiciary." The plaintiff's request for responsibility is unfounded. Baoshan Court also pointed out that if Mr. Quan allows the situation to develop unchecked, it may cause serious harm to Mr. Chu, and Mr. Qiu will bear corresponding legal responsibility for it. Therefore, in a sense, Mr. Quan's actions not only protected Mr. Chu, but also 'saved' Mr. Qiu. The Baoshan Court believes that Mr. Qiu's request for corresponding compensation liability is unfounded, unreasonable, and unreasonable, and the People's Court does not support it. Ma Teng stated that the resolution of conflicts and disputes always prioritizes rationality and the rule of law. Mr. Qiu's behavior trajectory in this case shows a wrong path of "emotional escalation violent intervention conflict intensification multi-party damage". Emotional violent intervention not only fails to quell the conflict, but also exacerbates the situation and even causes serious adverse consequences. Regarding this, Ma Teng called for the establishment of three types of consciousness when facing conflicts and disputes. One is the awareness of the rule of law. Any dispute should be resolved within the framework of the rule of law, and violence is never the correct way to solve problems. When conflicts escalate, priority should be given to legal channels such as reporting to the police, mediation, and litigation. The second is rational consciousness. Rational communication is always the safest and most effective solution. Impulsiveness is never the way to solve problems, but the "spark" that creates tragedies. Only by calmly handling and acting in accordance with the law can we truly avoid 'small things causing big disasters'. The third is empathy consciousness. Both parties in a conflict often have their own opinions, but if they can empathize and understand each other's positions and feelings, many conflicts can be resolved. (New Society)