The winter vacation has arrived, and the Spring Festival holiday is about to be ushered in, and many parents have arranged a variety of entertainment programs for their children. When you're not in a spare time, don't overlook safety.
Let's pay attention to several typical cases of infringement disputes involving minors' leisure and entertainment activities announced by the Shunyi District People's Court of Beijing. A 7-year-old boy in Beijing was injured while he was playing at a ski resort accompanied by his parents. After the incident, the boy's family sued the ski resort and Ms. Ji, another skier who caused his injury, to the court.
Skiing, trampoline, hot springs
Don't forget to be safe and happy
In a ski resort in Beijing, a little boy stopped on the slope to rest despite the danger, and after a few minutes, the little boy simply lay down. Although the boy's mother was always by her side, she could not prevent the accident from happening.
Video footage shows a skier who didn't have time to dodge and crashed straight into the mother and son, directly causing facial injuries to the little boy.
Defendant Ms. Ji: After I avoided the four people in front of me, it was indeed at a short distance, and it was difficult to make a calm and rational judgment, and it was indeed too big to make a contact when lying down, and I really couldn't avoid it.
During the trial, the defendant Ms. Ji said that she did not adjust her direction in time because her vision was blocked. In this regard, the plaintiff's father and the defendant ski resort expressed different views.
Mr. Wang, the plaintiff's father: Her so-called obstruction of view proves that she did not take the initiative to avoid it, but only drilled into crowded places.
Defendant Ski Resorts Owned by Companies: Skiers behind must choose routes that do not endanger skiers in front of them, and should maintain a safe distance when overtaking other skiers from behind or from the side.
So, why did the little boy lie down on the snow trail at that time, and was it at fault for the family who was with him?
Plaintiff's father, Mr. Wang: Because he was at the bottom, many people were lying or standing there to rest, and no one came to dissuade us that this place could not rest, and it was at the bottom. Because of the two hours of sliding, the child said that there might be some problems with his legs, and then he lay down for a while.
Regarding the plaintiff's father's statement, the defendant Ms. Ji believed that the collision occurred because the little boy's guardian allowed the child to lie on the snow track, and he was unable to avoid it when he found it. Therefore, the plaintiff was at fault and should bear the main responsibility.
During the trial, whether the ski resort fulfilled its safety and security obligations was also the focus of controversy between the parties. The ski resort said it had given a safety reminder by radio, but the plaintiff said he didn't hear it at the time.
In addition, the defendant ski resort also submitted that Article 1176 of the Civil Code stipulates that if a person voluntarily participates in a cultural or sports activity with a certain risk and suffers damage due to the behavior of other participants, the victim shall not request the other participants to bear tort liability. Skiing is a sport, so the principle of self-risk should be applied in this case, and each participant should bear the risk on his own, and the defendant ski resort is not liable.
All three parties are at fault
The proportion of responsibility is determined according to the degree of fault
I was happy to go skiing, but I didn't expect to end up going to court. After the trial, the court held that the plaintiff and the two defendants were both at fault in this incident, and the responsibilities should be divided according to the degree of fault of each party.
First of all, the court held that skiing is a professional, technical and dangerous activity, so skiers should maintain a high duty of care.
Wei Wei, Judge of the Comprehensive Trial Division of the Shunyi District People's Court of Beijing: There are many tourists standing and staying on the slope when the incident occurred, and the skier Ji should take the appropriate skiing speed and gliding route based on his personal ability and the actual situation of the ski slope, so that he can slow down and adjust the direction in time when he encounters danger to avoid endangering the personal safety of other tourists. However, Ji did not control his own speed, and also neglected to observe the situation in front of the snow track, did not find Wang who stayed on the snow track in time, and did not have enough time to take avoidance measures, resulting in a collision with Wang, so we believe that Ji is at fault.
In addition, the Court held that according to the FIS Ten Ski Safety Guidelines, it is important for skiers behind to choose routes that do not endanger skiers in front. In other words, the skier ahead has priority to use the slopes. Therefore, the court did not accept the defendant Ms. Ji's defense that she was "unable to avoid it because her view was blocked".
The court held that the defendant, Ms. Ji, should bear the corresponding tort liability. At the same time, however, according to Article 1173 of the Civil Code, if the infringed party is at fault for the occurrence or expansion of the same damage, the infringer's liability may be reduced. In this case, the plaintiff was also at fault for the occurrence of the damage, and should bear the corresponding liability and reduce Ms. Ji's liability for compensation.
With regard to the liability of ski resorts, the court held that according to the relevant provisions of the Civil Code on the safety and security obligations of the managers of business premises, the defendant ski resort was negligent in its management in this case and should bear supplementary liability within the scope of security liability.
During the trial, the ski resort proposed that the principle of self-risk in this case should be applied to the Civil Code, and the ski resort should not be held liable. The Court held that this principle did not apply in this case.
Wei Wei, Judge of the Comprehensive Trial Division of the Shunyi District People's Court of Beijing: The reason why it cannot be established is that the company itself has management negligence, and for Ji, she is also at fault, and this kind of fault or gross negligence cannot be a defense for applying self-willed risks. So being willing to take risks is not a gold medal for exemption.
In the end, the court determined at its discretion according to the degree of fault of all parties that the plaintiff Wang should bear 20% of the liability, the defendant Ms. Ji should bear 80% of the liability and compensate the plaintiff for various losses totaling more than 9,900 yuan, and the defendant ski resort company shall bear no more than 30% of the supplementary liability for compensation in accordance with the judgment in the preceding paragraph when Ms. Ji fails to perform the compensation obligation in accordance with the judgment in the preceding paragraph. At present, this judgment has entered into force and is being executed.
To have a thorough understanding of the rules of skiing
Beginners are better off having an instructor
Skiing is a professional, high-risk sport, and you can't rush to the slopes with enthusiasm alone. It is necessary to fully understand the rules and safety precautions of the exercise in advance, and to fulfill reasonable duty of care during the exercise, and adopt the appropriate gliding speed and gliding method. Especially beginners, it is best to exercise in the company of a professional coach, which is responsible not only for yourself, but also for the safety of others.
Children slipped and broke their bones in hot springs
Claim tens of thousands of yuan from the hotel
Next, the entertainment in this case is also a very popular activity in winter - hot springs. Although it is not a strenuous exercise or thrilling event, it should also be concerned about the potential risks of minors when playing. A 12-year-old boy living in Shunyi District, Beijing, accompanied by his family, went to a hot spring hotel when he accidentally slipped and fell and injured himself. After the incident, the boy Li sued the hot spring hotel to the court.
The video footage of the hot spring hotel on the day of the incident shows that the boy wearing black swimming trunks and a black swimming cap is Li. He walked alone to the vicinity of the children's hot spring area, ready to play in the hot spring pool. Just as he was descending the steps, his feet slipped and he accidentally fell. Li was then sent to the hospital for treatment and was diagnosed with multiple fractures. After the incident, Li sued the hot spring hotel to the court, claiming a total of more than 13,000 yuan for medical expenses and other losses.
So, who is responsible for Li's injury?
During the trial, the plaintiff Li said that the anti-skid measures on the ground of the defendant hot spring hotel were not in place, and there were no reminder signs such as "pay attention to anti-slip" near the hot spring pool, and the safety guarantee obligation was not fulfilled, and Li should be responsible for the fall.
In this regard, the defendant submitted some photos of the reminder signs in the hot spring hotel to prove that he had fulfilled his obligation to prompt.
According to the evidence pictures provided by the defendant, warning signs were posted on the walls, front desk, and changing rooms in the hot spring hotel, which mentioned "do not let children move alone", "children and the elderly need to be supervised by adults", "parents are requested to take good care of children to avoid accidents", etc.
The defendant believes that Li's guardian did not take good care of Li, which was the cause of Li's slip and fall.
The court held that both the boy and his guardian, as well as the hot spring hotel, were at fault in this case and should bear corresponding legal responsibility. First of all, although the plaintiff Li is still a minor, he is already 12 years old, and he should have a certain cognitive ability about the danger of walking barefoot on underwater steps. Moreover, Li's guardian did not fulfill his duty of care, and should bear the main responsibility for the accident.
Cao Yong, Vice President of the Comprehensive Trial Division of the Shunyi District People's Court in Beijing: When he went down to the pool and walked on the slippery ground, he should have had a duty of care and prudence, but he did not notice it himself, and his guardian was not present and did not fulfill his duty of care and protection.
As for the liability of the defendant hot spring hotel, the court held that the hot spring hotel had a special children's entertainment area and therefore should have fulfilled a higher security obligation, and was also at fault in this incident and should bear secondary liability.
Two children collide while playing on a trampoline
One of them constituted a Grade 10 disability
For parents who accompany their children, they should play more effectively when playing, and in the event of an accident, even if they can be held accountable to the business premises or a third party, the harm to the child has been irreparable.
The next 2-year-old boy, Liu, went to an indoor trampoline park under the leadership of his parents. While playing, he was injured after colliding with an 8-year-old boy, constituting a 10th degree disability.
The two children in the video, one running and the other jumping, suddenly collided and fell to the ground at the same time. The accident resulted in a 2-year-old Liu's leg fracture, which was identified as a grade 10 disability.
After the incident, Liu sued the trampoline park and Zhou to the court, claiming more than 20 yuan for medical expenses, disability compensation and other losses.
Plaintiff Liu's mother: It was the defendant and their child who jumped by themselves when they fell and hit Liu. It is shown in the video that his arm and right leg hit Liu, because the impact caused the child's left leg to hit the edge and then fractured.
Defendant Zhou's father: The video is already obvious, Zhou and Liu have no physical contact. Our child can play in it at the age of 8, and he plays in it in a proper manner, and he is not at fault for any reason.
Plaintiff Liu's mother: Such a big playground has a lot of people during Golden Week, and security should be strengthened. The trampoline area should be divided into zones, age groups, and weights to manage, and I should always be advised, but I still haven't fulfilled my responsibilities.
Defendant Trampoline Park Staff: We have a lot of slogans, why our tickets are one big and one small, and children alone are not allowed to enter, so we can do it, and the reminder has been reminded.
The three parties of the original defendant insist on their own words, so how should the responsibilities be divided?
The court held that in this case, it was not the physical contact with the injured person that caused the fault, and although the defendant Zhou collided with the plaintiff, he should not bear tort liability. In this case, Trampoline Park should bear the primary responsibility, and the plaintiff Liu should bear the secondary responsibility.
Wei Wei, Judge of the Comprehensive Trial Division of the Shunyi District People's Court of Beijing: Although Liu and Zhou collided and had physical contact, Zhou bounced and fell on the trampoline during normal play, and he did not make dangerous movements or affect others. Moreover, Liu's jumping into the trampoline from the side and back was also beyond Zhou's reasonable line of sight, so we believe that Zhou's behavior was not at fault, and Zhou and his guardian should not bear tort liability.
The court held that the defendant, as the operator and manager of the children's playground, failed to fulfill its full safety and security obligations, and should bear the main responsibility in this case.
In accordance with the relevant provisions of the Civil Code, the court held that the guardian of the plaintiff Liu should bear secondary responsibility for the absence of care in this accident.
According to the degree of fault of the original defendant in this case, the court determined at its discretion that the company to which the trampoline park belonged should bear 60% of the liability, the plaintiff Liu should bear 40% of the liability, and the defendant Zhou and his guardian would not be liable.
On August 24, 2022, the Beijing Shunyi District People's Court made a judgment in this case, and the company to which the defendant trampoline park belonged compensated the plaintiff Liu for various losses of more than 130,000 yuan.
In recent years, parents have diversified the cultivation of children's interests and hobbies, and the entertainment activities for minors have been constantly innovating. There are more exciting activities such as horse riding, trampoline, rock climbing, skiing, go-karting and more. There are also leisure projects such as soaking in hot springs, visiting cat cafes, and visiting exhibition halls. Legal experts point out that parents should choose items according to their ability to avoid danger.
Zhu Wei, Deputy Director of the Communication Law Research Center of China University of Political Science and Law: There are a lot of intense sports, sometimes not suitable for minors, especially for young children. Because they are not professionally trained, they are very vulnerable to injury in such a place, let alone children.
Legal experts believe that as operators and managers of entertainment venues open to minors, they should establish a sound safety system and management system, and fulfill higher standards of safety and security obligations, so as to protect minors from danger and create a safer and more reliable play environment for minor consumer groups.
Cai Rui, assistant researcher of the Civil Law Research Office of the Institute of Law of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences: timely discover the potential risks and hidden dangers in the place and process of such business activities, prevent problems before they occur, and eliminate risks in the bud.
In order to promote the healthy development of the entertainment market, it is necessary to make improvements from two dimensions: prevention in advance and relief after the fact. Since minors often lack risk awareness and risk prevention capabilities, parents should fulfill their responsibilities of education, management, and protection in a more prudent and comprehensive manner.
Zhu Wei, Deputy Director of the Communication Law Research Center of China University of Political Science and Law: Including the Civil Code, the Law on the Protection of Minors and the Law on the Promotion of Family Education, these laws clearly stipulate that parents are the first responsible persons for their children, and the guardian's duty is to protect their children. If the child is damaged because of the guardian's problems, in the process of causing the damage, both his own children and his own children cause damage to others, the guardian himself has to bear most of the responsibility.