In recent years, trampoline parks, extreme climbing and other entertainment centers have been built in various places. Once consumers are injured, how should they protect their rights?
Recently, a case released by the Third Intermediate People's Court of Beijing Municipality has attracted attention -
It is understood that Satsuki is a college student. One day during the summer vacation of 2020, Satsuki and her sister went to "check in" an extreme trampoline park. Satsuki wanted to experience a high platform project, where she had to walk up to a platform of about two meters and fall back into the sponge pool below.
After briefly informing her of the project play and prohibited matters, the staff guided her to the project site.
Xiao Yue recalled that after he went to the high platform, he began to panic and timid, and the moment he leaned back from the high platform, his subconscious body couldn't help curling up, fell heavily on the sponge mat, and was unable to stand on his own at that time, and was later diagnosed by the hospital that his thoracic 12 vertebral fracture and thoracic 11 vertebral compression fracture constituted a ninth-degree disability.
After the accident, my sister contacted the staff of the Extreme Trampoline Park to demand a claim. The Extreme Trampoline Park replied that it had been prompted that Satsuki was injured because she did not follow the instructions of the staff to complete the action and refused to compensate.
The two sides were in a dispute, and Xiao Yue sued the court, demanding that the extreme trampoline park compensate her for medical expenses and nursing expenses, totaling more than 400,000 yuan.
The court held that the operator of the extreme trampoline park, as an entertainment venue, set up such amusement projects for the purpose of profit, and according to the principle of consistency between benefits and risks, it should have an obligation of care to protect the personal safety of the players, that is, the obligation of security.
The Extreme Trampoline Park did not fully consider the safety risks of the high-platform project involved in the case, especially in the reasonable proportion of heavy objects, jumping platform height and sponge thickness.
There were no specific reminders and notices to participants on risks and precautions, and except for brief notices of the project's gameplay and prohibited matters, the possible damage consequences to the project were not covered.
During the participation of the project, the safety personnel assigned by the operators did not undergo professional training, and the reasons for prohibiting participation such as weight restrictions were not reviewed, which neither eliminated potential safety hazards nor effectively prevented the occurrence of damage.
After the incident, Xiao Yue was not professionally treated.
After considering many factors, the court found that the Extreme Trampoline Park was at fault in performing its safety and security obligations and should bear the main responsibility for Satsuki's injury.
As an adult, Satsuki should have a clear understanding of the risks of the project involved, and she is also at fault for the damage caused by her failure to act in accordance with the regulations, and should bear secondary responsibility.
An 11-year-old girl plays escape room and falls into a level 9 disability
Recently, there is also a lawsuit caused by a safety accident, rushing to the hot search.
According to the Chaoyang District People's Court of Beijing, Xiaolan, an 11-year-old girl, met with her classmates in the process of playing the escape room and was frightened by the terrifying "monster" played by the staff and fell down the empty steps, and Xiaolan's crushed fracture of the distal epiphysis of the left tibia constituted a ninth-degree disability.
Xiaolan sued a cultural communication company, the company that operated the escape room, to the court, demanding compensation totaling more than 400,000 yuan for medical expenses, disability compensation, and emotional damages.
The court held that "when designing game links, setting game levels, and decorating escape rooms, consumers' personal safety when participating in escape rooms should also be fully protected".
Taking into account the characteristics of the escape room game and the degree of fault of both parties, it was determined that a cultural communication company bore 70% of the responsibility for the accident and Xiaolan bore 30% of the responsibility, and the first instance ruled that a cultural communication company compensated Xiaolan for various expenses totaling more than 200,000 yuan.
Comprehensive China Youth Daily, Beijing Third Intermediate People's Court, Chaoyang Law Garden
Source: Future.com