The parents who drowned in the river mussel claimed 1.2 million yuan, and the court dismissed it because of their own indirect intentional acts

Recently, the Suzhou Intermediate People's Court rendered a second-instance judgment on a tort liability dispute case caused by the drowning of a mussel in the river, and upheld the Wuzhong District People's Court's rejection of the deceased's parents' claim that an aquatic company compensate for various losses of 1.2 million yuan.

The court said that the deceased, as a person with full capacity for civil conduct, should be able to realize the greater danger of touching the river mussel in the water. Drowning is the result of an indirect intentional act of oneself and is not necessarily causal and unrelated to whether the manager of the water or river has fulfilled his duty of safety and security.

The mussel accidentally drowned, and the parents sued for 1.2 million yuan

In August 2020, the newly adult Liu Hua (pseudonym) and two friends went to the river to touch the river mussels. Due to the complex hydrological situation of the waters and Liu Hua's lack of understanding of water, he accidentally drowned in the water.

Liu Hua's parents sued an aquatic company, the water management operator of the incident, to court, arguing that as a water management, it had not set up warning signs or rescue measures in Liu Hua's sewerage area, failed to fulfill its management duties, and should bear tort liability, demanding that the company compensate for various losses totaling more than 1.2 million yuan.

The aquatic company argued at trial that it was not a qualified subject and there was no evidence that Liu Hua drowned within the waters under his cultivation. The aquatic company said that the place of the incident was outside the purse seine set up by the company, not in its aquaculture waters, and there were prohibition signs along the lake, and Liu Hua, as a person with full capacity for civil conduct, should be responsible for his own behavior and safety.

Court: Such dangers are common sense and do not need to be reminded

So, how will the court determine that the two sides have their own opinions?

After trial, the Wuzhong court held that, first of all, the aquatic products company failed to provide direct evidence that the wooden pile purse seine was used as the actual management of the water area, and its installation of wooden piles could prove that it actually managed and used the water area. After Liu Hua was launched, he swam along the wooden stakes, and an accident occurred in the waters, and it was difficult to determine that the aquatic products company had nothing to do with Liu Hua's death, and there was no problem with the company's main qualifications.

Secondly, the two on-site participants who accompanied the trip confirmed that there was a warning sign prohibiting swimming on the shore. Judging from the scene situation, the intersection surface of the water and the external river channel is wider and the distance from the lake shore is higher, which can make people fully aware of the danger of the water. Liu Hua ignored the prohibition sign and took the initiative to launch the water, which was the cause of the accident. According to the entourage Wang Mou, when he and Liu Hua were moving on the shore after launching the water, the water depth exceeded the shoulder to the neck, which showed that the water was deeper and did not have the conditions to touch the river mussels, but Liu Hua failed to perceive the danger, still moved to the middle, and then an accident occurred.

Moreover, even if there are no warning signs at the scene, Liu Hua, as a person with full capacity for civil conduct, should be able to realize that there is a greater danger in the water to touch the river mussels. Such a danger is common sense, does not exceed the cognitive limits of normal people, does not need to be reminded, and there is no provision requiring that waters such as the shore of the river must be equipped with protective fences.

The parents' litigation claims were rejected in the first instance, and the original judgment was upheld in the second instance

The court held that Liu Hua's voluntary drowning, which caused liu Hua to voluntarily launch water activities in the knowledge of danger, was caused by his own indirect intentional acts, and there was no necessary causal relationship with whether the manager of the water or river had fulfilled his safety and security obligations. Liu Hua's parents demanded that the aquatic company bear the liability for compensation, which lacked legal basis.

Accordingly, the court ruled to dismiss Liu Hua's parents' claims.

Liu Hua's parents appealed, and the Suzhou Intermediate Court ruled to reject the appeal and uphold the original judgment.

The judge reminded that in recent years, there have been cases of casualties caused by swimming in non-designated natural waters every year. Although watershed management units have the obligation to ensure safety, their management efforts are limited. Only by strictly abiding by the provisions of laws and administrative regulations, cherishing life, staying away from "wild swimming", and reporting and stopping the dangerous behavior of others can we avoid tragedies.

Correspondent Chen Junsheng Yangzi Evening News/Purple Cow News reporter Wan Chengyuan

Source: Purple Cow News