The claim for drunk fishing and drowning is unfounded and the petition is rejected

　　□ Our reporter Rosasha

　　□ Our correspondent Chen Min Ge Ronggui

　　After drinking alcohol in other places, Shen came to fish in the fish pond of a certain restaurant, but unfortunately drowned. Should the restaurant be liable for compensation?

Recently, the People's Court of Dantu District, Zhenjiang City, Jiangsu Province tried such a case, deeming that the hotel does not have the obligation to protect the customers' prior behavior, and rejected all claims of the plaintiff.

　　In October 2019, Shen ordered a table for dinner at a Nanxiang restaurant in a certain place in Zhenjiang.

At noon on October 23, Shen ate and drank at a friend's place.

At about 14:00 that day, Shen came to Nanxiang Restaurant to arrange dinner related matters in advance.

Waiting, Shen wanted to go fishing in the fish pond of the restaurant, so he asked the operator Yin if he had a fishing rod.

Although Nanxiang Restaurant does not include fishing projects, Yin still provided fishing rods and flour to Shen.

After that, Shen went fishing in the fish pond by himself. Later, because he could not get in touch with Shen, everyone called the police.

When professionals salvaged him from the fish pond, Shen was dead.

　　Shen's close relatives, Bian and Shen Xiaomou, sued Nanxiang Restaurant to the court, believing that they were not responsible for protecting the personal safety of consumers, and demanded that Nanxiang Restaurant be liable for 20% of the compensation for Shen's death, totaling 219,840 yuan.

　　The Dantu Court held that after trial, Shen, as a person with full civil capacity, should foresee the danger of drunk fishing.

At the same time, the fish pond involved in the case was not a commercial fishing ground. Shen was fishing in the fish pond, and the hotel did not charge corresponding fees, nor was he obliged to appoint a dedicated person on duty to protect his personal safety.

In addition, Shen did not drink at the Nanxiang restaurant before, and the Nanxiang restaurant does not have the obligation to protect his prior behavior.

Now Bian and Shen Xiaomou claim that Nanxiang Restaurant shall bear the liability for compensation as the operator, without facts and legal basis.

Therefore, the litigation claims of Bian and Shen Xiaomou are not supported.

　　Bian and Shen Xiaomou appealed against them, and the Zhenjiang Intermediate People's Court ruled to dismiss the appeal and uphold the original verdict.

　　Judge's statement

　　The judge said after the court that in the handling of disputes involving the "security obligation", there is a tendency to sympathize with the weak.

Although the relevant laws stipulate that the operators of catering services should perform the duty of safety and care to the customers in their business premises, the duty of care and safety should not be excessively demanding, and the judgment standard should be based on the fact that a person with normal civil capacity should not be in the place. Violation shall prevail.

In this case, Shen, as an adult with full civil capacity, should bear the consequences for the foreseeable risks brought about by his own choices.