Article 1004
Natural persons have the right to health. The physical and mental health of natural persons is protected by law. No organization or individual may infringe upon the right to health of others.
I. Purpose of this Article
This article deals with the right to health of natural persons.
II. Evolution of the Provisions
This article is derived from Article 98 of the original General Principles of the Civil Law, which stipulates that citizens enjoy the right to life and health. Article 2 of the original Tort Liability Law stipulates that anyone who infringes civil rights and interests shall bear tort liability in accordance with this Law. "Civil rights and interests" as used in this Law includes personal and property rights and interests such as the right to life, health, name, reputation, honor, portraiture, privacy, marital autonomy, guardianship, ownership, usufructuary rights, security interests, copyrights, patent rights, the right to use trademarks, the right to discover, equity, and inheritance. At the level of judicial interpretations, Article 2 of the 2001 Interpretation on Compensation for Moral Damages stipulates that if a natural person has suffered an unlawful infringement of the following personality rights and files a lawsuit with the people's court requesting compensation for moral damages, the people's court shall accept it in accordance with law: (1) the right to life, the right to health, and the right to body...... Article 1 of the original Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Personal Injury Compensation Cases (hereinafter referred to as the 2003 Interpretation on Compensation for Personal Injury) provides that if the compensation rights holder sues for compensation for property losses and mental damages due to the infringement of life, health or body, the people's court shall accept it. For a long time, the provisions of laws and judicial interpretations on the right to health have been limited to physical health, and there are different understandings of whether mental health is covered. This article stipulates that the physical and mental health of natural persons is protected by law. It is clarified that the right to health includes both physical health and mental health.
3. Interpretation of Provisions
This article regulates the concept and content of the right to health.
The right to health refers to the specific personality rights of natural persons to maintain the interests of the human body's vital activities by virtue of the normal operation and perfect functioning of their own physiological functions. The difference between the right to health and the right to body is that the right to health protects the normal operation and perfect functioning of the physiological functions of a natural person, while the right to body protects the integrity of the body components of a natural person. In short, the right to health protects the integrity of bodily functions, and the right to body protects the integrity of its components.
The object of the right to health is health. Health refers to the normal operation of physiological functions and the perfect function of maintaining human life activities, and these two elements play a role in harmony to achieve the ultimate goal of maintaining human life activities. There are different views on whether mental health is the object of the right to health, with some arguing that mental health is not part of the right to health and others arguing that mental health is part of the right to health.
The subject of the obligation to the right to health is all natural, legal and unincorporated organizations other than the right holder. "No organization or individual shall infringe upon the right to health of others" stipulates that the subject of the right to health and the legal obligations it bears.
4. Cases
Liu v. Sun and Li, a dispute over the right to health
Facts: Mr. Sun is the individual owner of a daily necessities business department and a franchise store of a technology group, Mr. Li is the sales manager of a technology group company, and Mr. Liu has purchased health care products in the daily necessities business department. Li brought three digital meridian therapy instruments to the daily necessities business department opened by Sun for guidance, and Sun contacted Liu. In the process of guidance, Li introduced to Liu that the digital meridian therapy instrument has the effect of passing through the meridians, and used the digital meridian therapy instrument for Liu. Later, Liu felt unwell and vomited, and was later sent to the hospital for treatment, and was admitted to the hospital and diagnosed with "water intoxication, electrolyte metabolism disorder, and status epilepticus". Liu sued the court. The court held that the defendant Sun, as the convener and the provider of the guidance venue, did not set up a distinguishing mark that the digital meridian therapy device had no relationship with the products it operated, and provided auxiliary services in the process, so he should bear the corresponding legal liability in accordance with the law.
5. Analysis
Most of the general cases of infringement of the right to body are cases in which the perpetrator directly infringes on the victim's right to health, and the method of infringement of the right to health involved in this case is different from that in ordinary cases, and it is a case in which the perpetrator fails to fulfill the corresponding review obligation and leads to the infringement of the right to health of others. In this case, when an individual shopkeeper dealing in daily necessities allows others to engage in product promotion services in his business premises, he, as the venue provider, should conduct the necessary review of the legality and appropriateness of the advertised products and services. Where a venue provider fails to fulfill its obligation to conduct a reasonable review, resulting in a business that has potential health hazards in its products, and consumers suffer damage to their right to health due to the products sold by the sellers in the venue after making such purchases, the result of the damage is causally related to the venue provider's failure to fulfill the review obligation, and the venue provider is also at fault for failing to perform the corresponding review obligation, and shall bear corresponding tort liability in accordance with law. The judgment in this case also reminds us that in judicial practice, the reasons for the infringement of the right to health are complex, and the relevant tort liability, in addition to the exercise of the right to claim personality rights, needs to be determined in accordance with the general elements of tort liability.