Adidas Becomes A Defendant When Basketball Stands Collapse

At the end of the Adidas street basketball match in 2006, a basketball stand collapsed and hit Mr. Zhong Lin, causing second degree disability.

Mr. Lin took the five units of Adidas, basketball association and popular front to court and claimed $about 1200000.

The case was heard publicly in the people's Court of Yuexiu District, Guangzhou yesterday.

Event playback: playing with son square and being injured, July 21, 2006 to 23, "2006 Adidas street basketball match" was held in Guangzhou Hero Square.

Around 8 p.m. after the game, the staff began to clean up the scene.

At about 8:20 that evening, Mr. Lin was playing with his son in the Hero Square.

Playing with his son, he saw several short wooden boxes on the square and sat on one of the wooden boxes.

Suddenly, a basketball stand collapsed and hit the back of the forest. The forest fell on the spot.

Subsequently, the 120 emergency center immediately sent Mr. Lin to the First Affiliated Hospital of Zhongshan University for emergency treatment.

Confirmed by the hospital, Mr. Lin first lumbar vertebral compression fracture with posterior dislocation, spinal cord injury.

So far, Mr. Lin is still in the hospital.

After judicial identification, Mr. Lin's lower limbs were paraplegic, incontinence and incontinence. He could not take care of himself later in life. He had to live with the aid of orthosis and other auxiliary equipment. The grade of disability was two.

The injured person sued: a claim to the organizers of the ball game 1 million 200 thousand Mrs. Lin told reporters that Mr. Lin, who is 41 years old, holds a post in a large state-owned bank after her master's degree. She is also an important position in a bank, and her son is only 6 years old.

If it hadn't happened, their family might have been sent abroad by the bank.

It is understood that the basketball stands are the appliances used in the 2006 Adidas Street Basketball Challenge held in Hero Square from July 21, 2006 to 23.

The basketball stand was fixed with a bucket of water.

On the evening of the 23 th, after the game, several workers removed the basketball rack and dropped the water in the bucket. The basketball stand lost its balance and hit Mr. Lin, who was sitting on the side box.

Paralyzed overnight, the family that was originally a small family was in a dilemma because of the cost of over 60 yuan.

From a sports newspaper in Guangzhou, Mrs. Lin learned that the street basketball match was jointly sponsored by Adidas and Basketball Association. The Adidas company and basketball association were sent to the court for compensation of about 1 million 200 thousand yuan, including 100 thousand yuan spiritual solatium.

Yuexiu District accepted the case and applied for it. After that, it added Shanghai joint business Co. Ltd. and Shanghai Shanghai advertising company and Guangzhou popular front as co defendants.

The case was heard publicly in Yuexiu District court yesterday.

Court trial: the five defendants refused to take the blame on each other, and the five defendants avoided each other and denied that they were the sponsors of the event.

Adidas said that they had signed an agreement with the advertising agency of Mei Du, which was organized by the advertising company. The activities and losses should be borne by the advertising company, which has nothing to do with Adidas.

However, the Basketball Association said that the report of the Guangdong Basketball Association, which was published in a sports newspaper of Guangzhou in July 18, 2006, was not true.

The basketball association has sent a letter to the newspaper for correction, but the newspaper did not correct and did not give any answer.

The popular front line suggested that it was only responsible for submitting relevant information to the relevant departments for submission of the event, not the contractor.

The Shanghai Business Link Limited and Mei Du company belong to the same set of people, and have commissioned a common lawyer to represent the case.

The plaintiff said that the contract between Adidas and other companies is their internal problem, and does not affect Adidas's liability for the victim.

The contract also shows that Adidas itself is the sponsor of the event.

The case was finally presided over by the judge, and the two sides agreed to settle out of court, and the two sides could not agree on the specific amount of compensation and whether a settlement agreement could be reached.