Who will be responsible for the accident when playing mahjong at someone else’s house and dies? Recently, the Nancheng Court of the First People's Court of Dongguan, Guangdong Province heard a case. Mr. Liu's father went to the second floor of the side dish run by Ms. Han and accidentally fell down. After rescue, he died of serious injuries.
The court held that as the venue provider, Ms. Han had a security obligation to ensure the venue and should bear the compensation liability corresponding to her fault. After mediation by the judge, Ms. Han agreed to pay Mr. Liu 190,000 by December 31 this year.
Father fell down from the second floor and died on the afternoon of November 29, 2021, Mr. Liu suddenly received a call from Ms. Han. Ms. Han said that Mr. Liu's father fell down from the attic on the second floor of the side dish she ran, and asked him to come over quickly. After he rushed to the sideline food restaurant, he saw his father bleeding from his ears, nose and mouth, spitting foreign objects, and being confused.
After the incident, Mr. Liu's father was rushed to Dongguan People's Hospital for emergency treatment. Unfortunately, the next night, Mr. Liu's father unfortunately passed away due to his serious injury. After on-site investigation, the police also determined that the accident was an accident and refused to file a case.
According to reports, the two have known each other for nearly ten years. Mr. Liu's father has done a wholesale business of side food and often goes to Ms. Han's store to get goods. On the day of the incident, Ms. Han bought a new mahjong table, and Mr. Liu's father, relatives and friends and four others came to the store to play. According to friends who played mahjong together, Mr. Liu's father was tall and felt it was not comfortable to sit on the stool during the mahjong process, so he got up and wanted to put things on the stool. However, he accidentally stepped on the empty foot and fell down from the shipping port near the mahjong table.
Mr. Liu once looked for Ms. Han. He believed that his father happened in Ms. Han's store, and Ms. Han could not refuse to blame. At that time, Mr. Liu filed a compensation claim of nearly 400,000 yuan to Ms. Han, which made Ms. Han a little unacceptable. Ms. Han believes that although the incident happened in her store, Mr. Liu’s father’s accident had no direct causal relationship with her, and there was no way to discuss the responsibility.
The defendant was willing to pay 190,000
On July 19, 2022, the Nancheng Court of the First People's Court of Dongguan City held a public trial on the right to life dispute case. Whether the defendant Ms. Han needs to bear responsibility has become the focus of debate between the two parties on the trial that day. During the trial, Mr. Liu's lawyer stated that the person who participated in the mahjong game at that time would have to pay the defendant Ms. Han about 100 yuan of "tea fee", so Ms. Han should be regarded as the operator of the entertainment venue.
The defendant Ms. Han's lawyer denied the claim of collecting tea and water fees in court, saying that the four people playing mahjong at that time were old acquaintances, and the money was only used to buy cigarettes, alcohol and mahjong for the four people.
In the defendant's opinion, Mr. Liu's father, as an adult, is a business partner who has known him for many years. He is very familiar with the geographical environment of the second floor loft and the setting of the shipment entrance. Moreover, the accident location is not a public place, and there is no need to set up safety guardrails and warning signs. Mr. Liu's father accidentally fell was purely an accident, and the defendant should not bear the responsibility.
In order to find out the truth, after the trial that day, the presiding judge and the judge's assistant went to the scene to conduct on-site investigation. After checking the scene, the judge re-examined the case and tried to mediate both parties. The main difference between the two parties at that time was the amount of compensation. The plaintiff Mr. Liu insisted on asking for 200,000 yuan, while the defendant Ms. Han said that she could only give out 180,000 yuan. Under the presidency of the judge's mediation, the parties reached an agreement that the defendant Ms. Han agreed to pay Mr. Liu 190,000 yuan by December 31 this year.
Judge said:
Venue providers have an obligation to protect the safety of the venue
According to Article 1198 of the " Civil Code of the People's Republic of China ", operators and managers of entertainment venues and other business places and public places fail to fulfill their security obligations and cause damage to others, they shall bear the responsibility for infringement of . In this case, Ms. Han allowed others to play mahjong in the side dish restaurant she operated. As the venue provider, she has the obligation to ensure the venue and should bear the compensation liability corresponding to her fault.
According to reports, it is not concluded whether Ms. Han collected the "tea fee" mentioned by Mr. Liu's family in this case. Even if Ms. Han charges the so-called "fee", it involves determining whether Ms. Han has operated a entertainment venue for a fee. This will not of course exempt the operator from the safety obligation. As the venue provider, Ms. Han knew that there was a large shipment port beside the mahjong table, she should take corresponding protective measures to ensure the safety of the venue.
(Southern Metropolis Daily, Nandu Dongguan , N video report)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-