Ms. He of Hangzhou and husband are taking the child to go BMW 4S inn sees a car, ms. He sits in front of, the husband is holding the child in the arms to sit back row. The circumstance that a project of 4S inn test-drive is high speed travel issues urgent apply the brake, test the ability of apply the brake of car. Try in driving, of 4S inn when trying the member that drive to be in those who have urgent apply the brake to demonstrate, child of 3 years old declines from father's body go down, hook up left very big scar.
Its circumstance is probably such. Of course, bilateral to the process it is to stick to one's argument, ms. He states she has had enquired children seat to 4S, 4S inn expresses. And the test does not have a thing when ability of apply the brake warn first.
But 4S tries the member that drive to express, oneself are trying there is a specification to have what content before driving, and before testing ability of apply the brake, also the warning reminds, serve as the parent to should protect good child.
As to both sides after all what who says is really false we had not needed to argue, because get hurt, is the child, the child is the most pitiful for certain. is the parents of 4S inn or child without giving thought to, having to this thing cannot the responsibility of shirk.
To 4S inn, know perfectly well oneself try drive to did not configure children seat, the behavior that knowing perfectly well the apply the brake below high speed travel is not safety belt is breakneck, still allow a client to taking the child to try drive, did not undertake preventing, this itself is opposite one kind namely carefree manner. The client drives a project to do not have very intuitionistic understanding actually to trying this, the person that buys a car is not old driver certainly. So, 4S inn is having cannot the responsibility of shirk.
And for the parents to the child, want to have the knowledge of a foundation above all, holding 3 years old of children in the arms to take a car namely, itself is an insecure element. Although try the test that there is urgent apply the brake in driving, that possible also meeting encounters emergency occurrence slam the brakes on, to moment impossible somebody can remind you, you have time impossibly also to prepare. Adopting the child, should be not participated in originally try drive.
So, this thing itself is not the responsibility of which one party, however bilateral responsibility. Both sides wants to shift responsibility to the other side entirely now, what kind of state of mind is this?
