Daughter subjected to public strip search while shopping; parents sue the store and lose the case.

A high school sophomore named Xiao Qing in Beijing was accused of theft while shopping. The staff member verbally abused her and demanded that she undress for a search, causing dozens of people to gather around. Xiao Qing had no choice but to take off her outer clothing and search her pockets. Afterward, Xiao Qing frequently felt unwell, and the Sixth Hospital of Peking University diagnosed her with: "Currently, it is preliminarily considered to be a reactive state or reactive mental disorder." Xiao Qing's parents sued the supermarket operator, Mr. Wu, for personal injury compensation. On the 8th, the Beijing First Intermediate People's Court made a final ruling, rejecting Xiao Qing's lawsuit.

On the afternoon of March 13 this year, Xiao Qing went shopping at the public shopping center (supermarket) operated by Mr. Wu. After selecting some food, she went to the hairpin counter to shop but did not find a satisfactory hairpin, so she went to the checkout to pay for the food. However, just as Xiao Qing was about to leave, a staff member stopped her and demanded to know the whereabouts of a pair of hairpins she had in her hand. Feeling wronged, a dispute ensued between the two parties. According to Xiao Qing, the staff member continuously verbally abused her and demanded that she undress for a search, causing dozens of people to gather around. Xiao Qing had no choice but to take off her outer clothing and search her pockets. After failing to find the hairpins, the staff member and manager Mr. Wu finally apologized to Xiao Qing and let her go home.

After the incident, at Xiao Qing's request, Mr. Wu took her to the hospital for treatment. After examination, no abnormalities were found, and Mr. Wu also paid the relevant medical fees. Subsequently, Xiao Qing's parents took her to the Sixth Hospital of Peking University and other medical institutions for examination and treatment, where the hospital diagnosed her with: "Currently, it is preliminarily considered to be a reactive state or reactive mental disorder." Xiao Qing's parents believed that Mr. Wu's actions caused harm to their daughter's body and reputation, so they sued Mr. Wu for personal injury compensation, demanding 7,000 yuan for medical expenses, transportation fees, mental distress compensation, and nursing fees.

However, the court's final ruling ended with the rejection of Xiao Qing's lawsuit. Why did Xiao Qing, the victim, lose the case? To find out, a reporter interviewed the presiding judge of the case, Wang Nong.

Judge Wang Nong stated that the staff member's behavior indeed had faults, and as the employer, Mr. Wu should also bear corresponding civil liability. However, after the incident, Mr. Wu had already apologized to Xiao Qing and, at her request, took her to the hospital for treatment. After examination, no abnormalities were found, and Mr. Wu also paid the relevant medical fees, fulfilling his responsibilities. Although Xiao Qing held a diagnosis certificate and medical fee receipts from a subsequent hospital visit and demanded compensation from Mr. Wu, the evidence she submitted could not prove a necessary causal relationship between the diagnosis results and this dispute. Therefore, Xiao Qing's claims for compensation for medical expenses, transportation fees, mental distress compensation, and nursing fees lacked factual and legal basis.

The judge advised that in the event of similar incidents like Xiao Qing's, both businesses and customers must not take extreme or illegal actions. They should first seek to resolve the issue through negotiation, and if that fails, they should seek resolution through administrative management departments. For customers, if they believe that the business has mistakenly identified them as having committed illegal acts, or has even acted beyond their authority in violation of legal regulations, they should promptly report to the police to avoid direct conflict and prevent the situation from escalating. It is also advisable to seek testimony from third parties who can testify for them and have no vested interest in the matter, as evidence for future litigation.