"If you die, you will also let people pay compensation, or do you still talk about reasoning?" In Chuxiong, Yunnan, 61-year-old Ms. Tang went to a hotel to soak in a hot spring, and danced and posed at the pipe next to the pool, accidentally slipped into the pool and fell to her death. The family sued the hotel, claiming 898750.14 yuan!
(Case source: Judgment Document Network)
Ms. Tang, 61, loves life after retirement, and usually likes to take life photos and post them online.
During the Spring Festival in February 2021, he invited several friends to go to a hotel in Chuxiong, Yunnan Province, to soak in the hot springs.
On the day of the incident, after Ms. Tang took a bath, and thought about the happy life after retiring, she asked her friends who came to play together to help take pictures, and walked to the steel pipe used to support the roof outside the bubble pool.
After that, Ms. Tang posed in various poses to take pictures, patting and clapping with high interest, and also danced around the pipe, both hands or one-handed support pipe.
Suddenly, an accident occurred, because the ground was slippery, Ms. Tang did not stand still, accidentally slipped and fell into the unfilled bubble pool next to it, and was unconscious on the spot.
After Ms. Tang was sent to the hospital for treatment, but before it was too late, due to acute subdural hemorrhage, skull fracture, rescue was ineffective, unfortunately died.
Ms. Tang's family believed that her death was due to the hotel's failure to fulfill its safety and security obligations, so she sued the hotel to the court, claiming 898750.14 yuan.
The reason for Tang's family's claim is that the hotel knows that the ground next to the bubble pool is slippery and there is a safety hazard of falling, but it only posted a few small "carefully slippery" prompt slogans in a few inconspicuous places.
And no anti-slip floor mat or other effective anti-slip measures have been taken to eliminate danger, and safety protection is not in place.
The hotel felt very speechless, refuting that, first of all, Ms. Tang is more than 60 years old, rich in life experience, enough to recognize that there is a risk of dancing in a wet and slippery place on the ground, so it is necessary to dance, this accident is completely self-made, it is a self-willing risk, and it should be responsible.
Secondly, the hotel has already inlaid the tiles with colored footprint patterns and the words "carefully slide" on the aisle floor around the bubble pool, and has fulfilled the obligation of safety tips and should not be liable for compensation.
So, do you think the hotel should be held responsible for Ms. Tang's death?
The legal basis for Ms. Tang's family's claim is Article 1198 of the Civil Code: Operators, managers or organizers of public places such as hotels, shopping malls, banks, stations, airports, stadiums, entertainment venues and other business places, public places, or organizers of mass activities who fail to fulfill their safety and security obligations and cause damage to others shall bear tort liability.
According to the above provisions, the hotel, as the operator of the entertainment venue, does have a safety guarantee obligation for Ms. Tang.
However, the obligation of safety and security is not a security obligation, and this obligation should be within a reasonable limit, as long as the hotel party has fulfilled its reasonable obligations, it should not be liable for compensation.
Specific to this case, the hotel must first bear an exclusion obligation for the risks in the premises, and if it cannot be excluded, it must fulfill the obligation to remind.
The hotel operates a hot spring bath, next to the bubble pool will inevitably appear a dangerous area with a relatively slippery ground, which is the characteristic of the industry service itself, any hot spring will have such a dangerous area, obviously, let the hotel side eliminate the risk, keep the bubble pool around the dry is impossible.
Therefore, since the risk cannot be completely excluded due to its characteristics, the hotel party does not have to bear the liability for compensation as long as it fulfills the obligation of a reminder.
In this case, the hotel had inlaid the tiles with colorful footprints and the words "slide carefully" on the aisle floor around the bubble pool, which should be regarded as fulfilling its duty of safety and security.
Ms. Tang is 61 years old, has rich life experience, and should have some understanding of some basic risks, but she did not pay attention to safety, did not consider her own physical and age conditions, did not observe the surrounding situation, and carried out personal dangerous behaviors, resulting in accidents, and should bear the main responsibility for her death.
After trial, the court of first instance held that Ms. Tang was an adult and had the main obligation to avoid her own personal risks, that her dancing and taking pictures were the result of her own choice, and that she should bear the main responsibility for her own death.
However, the court of first instance also pointed out that the hotel did not take effective anti-slip measures to prevent the occupants from slipping and slipping, knowing that the side of the bubble pool was relatively easy to form a slippery slope along the aisle.
Moreover, in the process of taking photos, when Ms. Tang fell into a risk, the hotel did not find, dissuade and stop in time, failed to fulfill the safety and security obligations within a reasonable range, and had certain faults and should bear part of the responsibility.
The court of first instance ordered the hotel to bear 30% of the responsibility and compensate Ms. Tang's family for 300,000 yuan.
After the first-instance judgment, the hotel was not satisfied, filed an appeal, and said in the appeal that the hotel did not have any fault for Ms. Tang's death and should not bear the liability for compensation, but was willing to take the initiative to compensate Ms. Tang's family for 148284 yuan out of humanitarianism.
After trial, the court of second instance held that the precondition for the hotel to bear responsibility was that it failed to fulfill its security obligations.
In this case, the hotel had already made safety tips on the aisle floor around the bubble pool, and after Ms. Tang was injured, she was promptly sent to the hospital for treatment.
In the process of providing hot spring bathing, the hotel fulfilled the safety and security obligations common to the same industry, and it was not at fault in this case and should not bear the liability for compensation.
However, the hotel voluntarily compensated the family for economic losses of 148284 yuan for humanitarian reasons, and the hospital supported it.
Finally, the second-instance judgment revoked the first-instance judgment, confirmed that the hotel was not responsible, and ordered the hotel to compensate Ms. Tang's family for 148284 yuan.
For this case, the thinking mode of Ms. Tang's family is to "push the result to the process", which simply means that as long as someone in my family dies and is injured, the other party must be at fault and needs to lose money.
This mode of thinking is an important reason for the occurrence of many unreasonable claim cases, very important, the judgment of the second instance put things back on the correct track of "compensation for mistakes, no compensation for mistakes", and I personally support the views of the court of second instance.
What do you think about that?
Welcome to leave a comment
Follow @Haozi's statement
Share legal classics every day
Read the case, taste life, and see the variety of society! #Law Popularization Action ##楚雄 #
