The Supreme People's Court released the Typical Cases of People's Courts Adjudicating Tourism Disputes in Accordance with Law information

The people's courts hear typical cases of tourism disputes in accordance with the law

directory

Case 1: A dispute over the right to health between Zhang and the Emeishan Management Committee

Case 2: Zhu Mouxin v. a tourism company for a dispute over liability for breach of safety and security obligations

Case 3: Hu Moumou v. a travel company, a travel contract dispute

Case 4: Jiang Mouwei et al. v. a tourism company, a dispute over the liability of operators and managers of business premises and public places

Case 5: Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region Guilin Municipal People's Procuratorate v. Jin and three others in a civil public interest lawsuit for ecological damage

Case 1: A dispute over the right to health between Zhang and the Emeishan Management Committee

[Basic facts of the case]

In August 2017, Zhang heard that the monkeys in Mount Emei were lively and cute, close to people, and made a special trip to Mount Emei Scenic Area to watch the monkeys. After receiving the rescue from the staff of the Emeishan Scenic Area Management Committee (hereinafter referred to as the "Emeishan Management Committee"), Zhang called the tourism dispute hotline of the Tourism and Environmental Protection Court of the People's Court of Emeishan City, Sichuan Province (hereinafter referred to as the "Emeishan Tourism and Environmental Protection Court") and demanded compensation from the Emeishan Management Committee. After receiving the call, the staff of the Emeishan Tourism and Environmental Protection Court quickly arrived at the scene, explained the law and reasoned to both parties, and carried out mediation work.

【Mediation Result】

The Emeishan Tourism and Environmental Protection Court held that according to Article 37 of the Tort Law of the People's Republic of China (now Article 1198 of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China), operators and managers of public places have the obligation to ensure safety, and if they fail to fulfill the obligation to ensure safety and cause damage to others, they shall bear tort liability. At the same time, the security obligation should be controlled within reasonable limits. The wild monkeys in the scenic area involved in the case can come into contact with tourists more freely, and the scenic spot should bear a higher degree of protection obligations in terms of the safety of tourists' persons and property. Although the Emeishan Management Committee has set up railings and warning slogans, it has not fully fulfilled its safety and security obligations. Zhang did not comply with the warning requirements of the scenic spot on keeping a safe distance, entered the monkey gathering area to tease and feed the monkeys, and did not fully fulfill the corresponding duty of care. At the same time, considering that Zhang only needs to be vaccinated and does not constitute a disability level, the Emeishan Management Committee will compensate Zhang for the vaccine cost of 1,000 yuan.

【Typical Significance】

This case is a typical case of resolving tourism disputes before litigation with clear interpretation of the law. Operators and managers of scenic spots shall have full foresight of the dangers and damages that may occur in the scenic spots, and fully perform the obligations of notification, investigation, notification, reminder, and attention, so as to ensure that the personal or property safety of tourists is not infringed, otherwise they shall bear corresponding responsibilities. Tourists, as the first person responsible for their own safety duty of care, should consciously abide by the safety management system after entering the scenic spot, civilized tourism, safe tourism, and do not take the initiative to tease, attack or harm the wild animals in the scenic spot, so as to avoid accidents, otherwise they should also bear the corresponding responsibility. After properly resolving the dispute in the case, the Emeishan Tourism and Environmental Protection Court extended its judicial functions in accordance with the law, promoted the Emeishan Management Committee to further improve the safety and security measures, formulated the "Interim Measures for the Protection and Management of Terrestrial Wildlife in the Emeishan Scenic Area and Compensation for Damage", and made full use of mechanisms such as joint meetings to strengthen normalized coordination and cooperation with the Emeishan Management Committee. Through joint efforts, Mount Emei Scenic Area has achieved "zero prosecution" for wildlife injury disputes for five consecutive years, and truly realized the requirements of "no litigation" 5A-level scenic spots.

Case 2: Zhu Mouxin v. a tourism company for a dispute over liability for breach of safety and security obligations

[Basic facts of the case]

On May 31, 2020, Zhu Mouxin purchased tickets from a travel company and participated in the "Swinging Bridge" project on the same day. During the project, the staff of a tourism company shook the bridge deck, and Zhu Mouxin fell from the bridge and was injured. After being diagnosed by the hospital, Zhu Mouxin suffered a comminuted fracture of the left humeral condyle and was hospitalized for a total of 13 days. After identification, Zhu Mouxin's injury and current sequelae were assessed as Grade 9 disability. Zhu Mouxin filed a lawsuit with the people's court, requesting that a travel company be ordered to compensate for medical expenses and other economic losses.

【Judgment Result】

The People's Court of Dongshan County, Fujian Province, held in the first instance that the "Swinging Bridge" project involved in the case was dangerous, and a tourism company, as the operator and manager of the "Swinging Bridge", owed a higher degree of safety and security obligations to the project participants; Project participants should also fully assess the risk of the project involved in the case and have a higher degree of care for their own safety. Although a certain tourism company has set up warning signs to indicate the danger of the project, and has taken protective measures such as wrapping soft rubber to prevent falling injuries and collisions, it still does not provide sufficient and effective safety guarantees for the participants, and the staff of a certain tourism company has excessively shaken the bridge deck, and should bear the main responsibility. Zhu Mouxin, as a person with full capacity for civil conduct, failed to fulfill the necessary duty of care for his own safety, and also had a certain fault for the accident, and should bear secondary responsibility. After comprehensive consideration, it was determined that a certain travel company should bear 80% of the responsibility for the accident involved in the case, and Zhu Mouxin should bear 20% responsibility for the accident involved in the case, and the court ruled that a travel company should compensate Zhu Mouxin for economic losses totaling 299,754.34 yuan. After the verdict was pronounced, Zhu Mouxin and a travel company both appealed. The original verdict was upheld in the second instance.

【Typical Significance】

This case is a typical case of a tour operator being held liable according to the degree of its fault for failing to fully fulfill its safety and security obligations. The "swinging bridge" involved in the case is an amusement facility in which multiple people stand on the suspension bridge and shake the bridge back and forth to achieve the entertainment effect, and the possibility of falling and colliding is relatively high, and it is dangerous, and its operators have a higher duty of safety and care, and shall bear a higher responsibility for risk notification and danger prevention and rescue. The people's courts insist on "curing the disease" and "preventing the disease", clarify the boundaries of responsibility of the relevant entities in accordance with the law during the trial of the case, and promptly issue judicial recommendations to the tour operators after the judgment takes effect, guide them to increase the number of security personnel in a timely manner, improve the project risk description and safety protection measures, and effectively reduce the risk of accidents. This case is a vivid judicial practice of the rule of law to escort the high-quality development of the tourism industry, which has reference significance for guiding tourism operators to strengthen their safety obligations and tourists to improve their own safety awareness.

Case 3: Hu Moumou v. a travel company, a travel contract dispute

[Basic facts of the case]

On September 19, 2019, when Hu Moumou went to the poplar forest of a city that was in trial operation of a tourism company, he rented a beach motorcycle in the scenic area to ride, but the staff of a travel company did not inform Hu Moumou of safety matters such as prohibited routes. In the process of driving a beach motorcycle, Hu Moumou fell from a cliff and was injured. Hu Moumou filed a lawsuit with the people's court, requesting that a travel company be ordered to compensate for medical expenses, nursing expenses and other expenses.

【Judgment Result】

The People's Court of Golmud City, Qinghai Province, held in the first instance that for tourism projects with certain dangers, tour operators should inform tourists in detail of the precautions and possible dangers, so that tourists have a comprehensive understanding of the tourism project, especially the possible dangers. Before Hu Moumou ridden, the staff of a travel company did not inform the safety precautions in detail and did not clarify the riding route, resulting in Hu Moumou failing to fully understand the potential dangers and safety precautions of the project, and finally fell off the cliff and was injured, and a travel company should bear full responsibility. A travel company was ordered to compensate Hu Moumou for various losses of 288,231.2 yuan. After the verdict was pronounced, a travel company appealed. The original verdict was upheld in the second instance.

【Typical Significance】

This case is a typical case in which a tour operator bears full responsibility for failing to fulfill its safety and security obligations. The project services provided by tourist attractions shall meet the requirements of protecting the personal and property safety of tourists, and in the process of project services, tourists shall be informed of the safety instructions in detail in an explicit manner, and timely investigate the risks and hidden dangers to ensure that the safety and security obligations are fulfilled. In particular, for high-risk tourism projects, tour operators should bear higher safety and security obligations. This case is of warning significance for tourism operators to strengthen their awareness of safety risks, fully fulfill their safety and security obligations in accordance with the law, and promote the sustainable and healthy development of cultural tourism projects.

Case 4: Jiang Mouwei et al. v. a tourism company, a dispute over the liability of operators and managers of business premises and public places

[Basic facts of the case]

On August 20, 2022, Jiang Mouwei and his wife Xu Mouxian took their families to a scenic spot in Jiangshan City, Zhejiang Province for an outing, but did not purchase tickets. During the event, Xu Mouxian fell off a cliff and died, and the place of his death was not within the scope of the scenic route. The relatives of Jiang Mouwei and Xu Mouxian believe that Jiang Mouwei and Xu Mouxian carried out outdoor activities in a scenic spot developed and operated by a tourism company, and due to the poor management of the scenic spot, the perennial disrepair of facilities, and the lack of warning signs, the accident occurred, and they could not be treated in time, and filed a lawsuit with the people's court, requesting that the tourism company be ordered to bear the liability for compensation.

【Judgment Result】

The People's Court of Jiangshan City, Zhejiang Province, held in the first instance that Xu Mouxian and his entourage entered the scenic spot without purchasing a ticket, and did not form a tourism service contract relationship with the tourism company that operated and managed the scenic spot. Judging from the inquest records of the public security organs and the on-site investigation, the place where Xu Mouxian fell was located in a dangerous and inaccessible place in the valley, with no passable roads or wild roads, far away from the normal tour range of the scenic spot. The tourism company does not have the situation that the maintenance of scenic facilities is not in place and the prohibition area is not established. River tracing is a high-risk outdoor activity, and the participants should fully understand, predict and properly control the risks. Therefore, the judgment dismissed the plaintiff's claim. The judgment has entered into force.

【Typical Significance】

This case is a typical case in which a tour operator has fulfilled its safety and security obligations without assuming responsibility. In recent years, the popularity of niche outdoor sports such as river tracing, jumping pools, waterfalls, rafting has soared, but due to the particularity of the activity area and form, such outdoor activities often have a high risk. In this case, the people's court strictly and fairly applied the law and ruled that the managers of public areas who have fulfilled their safety and security obligations are not liable for compensation in accordance with the law, which is helpful to guide the participants of outdoor activities to firmly establish the value concept of "the individual is the first person responsible for their own safety care obligations" and strengthen their awareness of self-protection. At the same time, it is of positive significance to clarify the boundary of safety and security responsibilities and promote the strengthening of management of scenic spots.

Case 5: Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region Guilin Municipal People's Procuratorate v. Jin and three others in a civil public interest lawsuit for ecological damage

[Basic facts of the case]

On October 5, 2021, Jin asked Song Moulin and Lu Mouqi to camp on the top of Damian Mountain in the core scenic spot of the Lijiang River Scenic Area, a national 5A-level scenic spot. That night, the trio used a gas stove and set off fairy sticks to play. Subsequently, Jin stood on the stairs of the viewing platform and lit the "iron cotton" (steel wool fireworks) he carried and waved it for Song Moulin and Lu Mouqi to watch, causing sparks to splash and ignite the ground vegetation, causing a fire to burn 1.1255 hectares of key public welfare forests in the scenic area. Entrusted by a forestry design institute in Guilin, a forestry design institute in Guilin made a "vegetation restoration plan", with a total investment of 140,224.64 yuan and an assessment cost of 30,000 yuan. After identification, the loss caused by the loss of service function during the period from the damage to the ecological environment caused by the fire to the completion of the restoration was about 38,721.5 yuan, and the appraisal cost was 2,000 yuan. The People's Procuratorate of Guilin City, Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region, filed a civil public interest lawsuit for ecological damage, requesting that Jin and the other three be ordered to jointly and severally bear the above-mentioned costs.

【Judgment Result】

The Intermediate People's Court of Guilin City, Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region, held in the first instance that Jin and the others had full capacity for civil conduct, and that they were camping on the top of Damian Mountain in the core scenic area of the Lijiang River Scenic Area, a national 5A-level scenic spot, and that they used fire in violation of regulations to burn down key public welfare forests, causing damage to ecological and environmental resources and infringing on the public interest, and should bear civil liability for the losses caused by the restoration of the ecological environment and the loss of service functions during the period from the damage to the ecological environment to the completion of the restoration. Jin and the other three had a common intention to use fire in violation of regulations, and did not remind each other and stop it during this period, and then caused the wildfire, and should bear joint and several liability. Comprehensively considering factors such as the degree of subjective fault of the three people, the degree of causal force of the damage, and other factors, it is determined that Jin's fault is obviously greater than that of Lu Mouqi and Song Moulin, and should bear primary responsibility. It was decided that Jin and the other three were jointly and severally liable for the losses and expenses of 210,946.14 yuan, and that Jin should bear 60% of the internal liability, and Lu Mouqi and Song Moulin should each bear 20%. After the verdict was announced, Jin and the other three all appealed. The original verdict was upheld in the second instance.

【Typical Significance】

This case is a typical case of tourists bearing civil liability for causing damage to the ecological environment. Tourists should consciously protect the natural resources and ecological environment of the scenic spot when visiting the scenic spot, and put an end to dangerous behaviors that may cause damage to the ecological environment such as illegal wildland fire. Compared with general scenic spots, national key scenic spots carry greater ecological and environmental functional value, and tourists have higher obligations to protect the ecological environment. In this case, Jin and the other three caused the fire, which did not constitute a crime and were not criminally prosecuted, but it did not affect their civil liability in accordance with the law. The people's court supported the civil public interest lawsuit filed by the procuratorate in accordance with the law, and ordered Jin and the other three to bear the corresponding responsibility for restoration and compensation, effectively protecting the ecological environment, natural resources, and public interests. At the same time, on the basis of determining that the three people bear joint and several liability in accordance with the law, the internal responsibilities are further divided, which is not only conducive to the one-time settlement of disputes, but also can guide fellow tourists to perform their duty of care such as reminding and persuading each other, and enhance the consciousness of ecological and environmental protection.