Because he was hit by the opponent's badminton shuttlecock in a spontaneously organized badminton game and injured his right eye, Mr. Song sued his golfer Mr. Zhou to the court for infringement of the right to health, demanding compensation for medical expenses, nursing expenses, and hospital food subsidies. And other expenses.

On the morning of January 4, the Beijing Chaoyang Court conducted a public trial of the case in accordance with the law, and pronounced a verdict in court, believing that the plaintiff voluntarily participated in a risky confrontational competition, putting himself in potential danger, and should be deemed self-contained Risky behavior, and the defendant did not have intentional or gross negligence, so in accordance with the provisions of Article 176 Paragraph 1 of the Civil Code of the People’s Republic of China, the judgment rejected all the plaintiff’s claims.

　　Both the plaintiff and the defendant are badminton amateurs and have spontaneously participated in badminton competitions since 2015.

At 9 a.m. on April 28, 2020, the plaintiff, the defendant, and the four others outside the case played a badminton 3V3 match at the Red Scarf Park in Chaoyang District.

During the game, the badminton hit by the plaintiff and the defendant hit the right eye.

After the incident, the plaintiff was accompanied by the defendant to the hospital for treatment. After that, he was diagnosed with dislocation of the right eye intraocular lens and hemorrhage in the anterior chamber.

On May 28, the plaintiff was admitted to the hospital for treatment.

On July 6, the hospital issued a diagnosis certificate, which showed that the plaintiff saw atrophy of the optic nerve in the right eye before the operation, and optometry for more than 5 weeks after the operation indicated that the best corrected visual acuity in the right eye was 0.05.

　　The plaintiff stated that the defendant, aware of his old age, slow reaction, and eye injuries, had not fulfilled his duty of care, and chose to smash the ball vigorously at the plaintiff, causing the plaintiff’s right eye to be injured and nearly blind, which constituted a major negligence.

Taking a step back, even if the defendant’s actions did not constitute gross negligence, fair liability should be applied and both parties should share the losses.

　　The defendant denied this, saying that the plaintiff was over seventy years old and his eyes had been injured. Before the injury, the plaintiff had participated in three consecutive competitions. He should know whether his physical condition is suitable for continuing to participate in the competition and the risks.

In addition, the defendant was located in the middle and back of the field at the time of the incident. There was no gravity smash, and it was a tie. The defendant had no fault and should not be held responsible.

　　After trial, the court held that the plaintiff's claim that the defendant infringed his body in this case was a general tort applicable to general fault liability.

There is a causal relationship between the defendant's persecution and the plaintiff's physical injury.

Therefore, the key to determining whether the defendant constitutes an infringement is whether the defendant is at fault.

In this regard, the defendant claimed that the plaintiff constituted a self-willed risk, and the defendant should not bear tort liability; the plaintiff claimed that the defendant had gross negligence, even if there was no gross negligence, fair liability sharing should be applied.

　　Regarding whether the plaintiff’s conduct constitutes a self-willed risk, the first paragraph of Article 176 of the Civil Code of the People’s Republic of China stipulates that voluntary participation in cultural and sports activities with a certain risk shall be harmed by the actions of other participants. Persons shall not request other participants to bear tort liability; however, other participants have intentional or gross negligence for the damage.

　　The court held that badminton is a typical confrontational sport. In addition to the risks of sprains and strains, the more prominent risk is that contestants are easily hit by badminton.

As a badminton enthusiast who has participated in badminton for many years, the plaintiff should recognize and foresee the abilities of himself and other participants and the dangers of this sport, but he still voluntarily participates in the competition and shall be regarded as self-willing to take risks.

In this case, only if the defendant has intentional or gross negligence, he shall be liable for tort damages, otherwise he shall not be liable.

　　The plaintiff did not claim that the defendant was intentionally injured in the trial. Regarding whether the defendant had gross negligence on the plaintiff's injury, the court held that the defendant did not have too much time for consideration and judgment when returning the ball, and the highly tense atmosphere of the game would lead to competition Participants focus on sports, and it is difficult to require participants to carefully consider each behavior. Therefore, the duty of care in this situation should be limited to sports ethics and rules that are more relaxed than the general duty of care.

The defendant’s smashing offense is a normal technical action of this type of sport, and there is no obvious violation of the rules of the game, so it should not be deemed to have been grossly negligent.

　　Regarding whether the case can be applied to fair liability sharing of losses, the court held that fair liability means that both parties have no fault for the occurrence of the damage, and the law does not provide for the application of no fault, based on the concept of fairness, the two parties share the loss .

But its scope of application should be strictly limited.

This case does not have the conditions for applying fair liability in accordance with Article 24 of the Tort Liability Law of the People’s Republic of China. Article 186 of the Civil Code of the People’s Republic of China clearly stipulates that the principle of fairness must be applied. It is a circumstance stipulated by law, and the current law does not stipulate that fair liability should be applied to the circumstances involved in this case. On the contrary, how to determine the responsibilities of the circumstances involved in the case has been determined by Article 176 of the Civil Code of the People’s Republic of China. Section 1 is clearly stipulated, so the case does not have the conditions for the application of fair liability.

　　Finally, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the "Civil Code of the People's Republic of China", "The Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China" and the "Several Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on the Application of the Time Validity of the "Civil Code of the People's Republic of China"", Chaoyang Court rejected all the plaintiff's litigation in the first instance request.

　　After the verdict was pronounced, the plaintiff indicated that it would consider whether to appeal, and the defendant indicated that he accepted the verdict.

　　It is understood that self-willing to take risks is a new rule officially established in the tort liability section of the Civil Code of the People’s Republic of China.

The "Civil Code of the People's Republic of China" strictly limits the application of the self-willing risk rule, stipulating that it applies to certain dangerous cultural and sports activities, and only applies to the damage caused by the actions of the participants, and cannot share the loss fairly. The provisions also apply.

The establishment of this clause has positive significance for the unification of judicial judgment standards and the healthy and orderly development of cultural and sports activities.

　　(CCTV reporter Xi Danni Li Wenjie Pei Xiaoxing)