Adults played for children's slide injuries and claimed for 170,000 yuan, court: rejection!

Seeing the knowledge in the subtle place, the righteousness from the childhood case. A case that is related to the interests of the masses, is closely linked to social life, and seems to be "small", but it has many "big truths" of fairness and justice.

In order to give full play to the important role of typical cases in promoting the core values ​​of socialism, the official WeChat of the Chongqing Senior People's Court launched the "Trip of Tips" columns to take you to experience the responsibility and determination of the people's court's justice for the people, and feel every judicial case. The positive energy of the rule of law transmitted in China.

Adults were injured when playing amusement slide in children's theme parks

Should the park management responsible unit be liable for compensation?

See how the court judges!

Case retrospective:

Xiao Zhang's work unit went to Fengxianghu Children's Park in Laoshan District to carry out group construction activities. During the event, Xiao Zhang went to the children's amusement slide to play, wounded his waist when he slipped down the ground, then went to the hospital for medical treatment. Damage constitutes a tenth level of disability.

After investigation, Fengxiang Lake Children's Park is a public welfare nature park. There is a safety notification sign at the entrance of the children's amusement slide venue, which clearly notified that the equipment in the amusement area is only suitable for children aged 3-14.

Xiao Zhang believes that the Laoshan District City Administration and the Cultural and Tourism Development Committee of Laoshan District, as the manager of the park, did not fulfill their obligations and should bear the liability of infringement, and then sued the court to ask for compensation for a total of 17,8130.5 yuan.

Resident result:

The Laoshan District Court heard that if the manager of public places failed to reach the obligation to security and caused damage to others, it should bear the liability of infringement, but the measure of whether or not the obligations of the security guarantee should meet Within a limited scope, it should not be overly blame. Fengxianghu Children's Park is an open theme park designed and built for children. It has public welfare nature rather than profitability. There is a safety notification sign next to the amusement facilities. The identification manager has fulfilled the obligation of security within a reasonable limit and has no corresponding fault.

Xiao Zhang's full -time civilian ability person has a cognitive and control ability to judge and behavior of his own. In the case of knowing that the park is a children's theme park, ignore the reminder on the security notification of the security notification, and put themselves in dangerous situation, plus the situation, plus the addition of themselves, plus it, plus it The bone structure and skeletal tolerance of adults and children are different. They should foresee that they are dangerous to play. The existence of ignoring danger is injured by their own faults and should be responsible for itself.

The court then judged: rejected the plaintiff Xiao Zhang's claim. After the verdict, Xiao Zhang refused to accept it and filed an appeal. After trial, the Chongqing First Intermediate People's Court held that the first instance found that the facts were clear and the applicable law was correct.

Judge

Article 1,198 of the Civil Code stipulates the responsibility of the security guarantee obligations, that is, "hotels, shopping malls, banks, stations, airports, stadiums, entertainment venues, etc. Or the organizers of mass activities, if they fail to fulfill their obligations of security and cause damage to others, they should bear the liability for infringement. "

From this we can see that the operators and managers of public places have the obligation to prevent risk prevention, but they must also have a reasonable boundary. The obligation of security is guaranteed, but the casualties in the venue still inevitably occur, and should not be responsible.

Whether the operators and managers of public places have fulfilled the obligations of security, can generally be measured from the following three standards:

1

Risk control standards, that is, the limits of security protection obligations shall match the scale and scope of function of the site;

2

The industry average standard, judging whether it has reached the usual attention obligations from the stiff industry regulations and flexible industry practice;

3

Standards for good managers, from the universal cognition of public places in public places, determine whether the place where places should reach a reasonable, prudent, and good person should achieve reasonable attention.

In this case, Xiao Zhang, as an adult, not only did not realize that his own behavior was not appropriate, but also sued the park after his own behavior was not appropriate. Managers ask for compensation.

The referee in this case is based on the facts and the law as the criterion to break the thinking inertia of "where the casualties occur and wherever they should be compensated." It has strongly promoted the core values ​​of socialism, conveyed the customs of social civilization, guided citizens to consciously abide by social morality and develop good civilization habits, and realized the unity of legal effects and social effects.

Source: Laoshan Court

- END -