China News Service, Xuzhou, May 23 (Zhu Zhigeng and Wang Min) The year before last, a woman had an accident while experiencing an inflatable trampoline game in a sports hall in Xuzhou and fell into a first-degree disability.

On May 23, the People's Court of Gulou District, Xuzhou City, Jiangsu Province announced that after the case was heard, the court ruled that the sports hall bears full compensation for the woman's damage.

At present, the second-instance judgment of the case has come into effect and has entered the enforcement stage.

  On May 25, 2020, Tong, his boyfriend and cousin came to a sports hall in Xuzhou to experience the trampoline game.

Under the guidance of the staff, after Tong took a good posture, his cousin jumped from the high altitude to the bouncing air cushion.

Tong was ejected in an instant, and his body flipped in the air and fell into the ocean ball pool. Tong lost consciousness below the chest on the spot.

The injured woman was taken off-site for ambulance.

Photo courtesy of Xuzhou Drum Tower Court

  Subsequently, Tong was sent to the hospital for treatment and was diagnosed as: complete paraplegia, cervical spinal cord injury, cervical dislocation (C6/C7), multiple fractures of the cervical spine (C6/C7 vertebral adnexal fracture). level disability.

Tong believed that the sports hall failed to fulfill its safety guarantee obligations and caused himself to be injured, and he should bear full responsibility for compensation, so he sued the sports hall to the court.

  The sports hall argued that it had fulfilled its safety and security obligations within a reasonable limit. As a complete civil actor, Tong's participation in recreational sports was a risky behavior, and the sports hall would not be held responsible.

  After hearing, the Drum Tower Court held that the sports hall, as the main body of business, set up trampoline games in its business premises for consumers to play, and should be responsible for the safety of the project.

The sports hall failed to provide sufficient buffer facilities and other necessary measures to prevent Tong from being violently impacted when he fell.

At the same time, the sports hall did not give Tong a clear explanation or warning about the specific risks that may exist in the project, resulting in the damage incident in this case.

  The court held that risk-taking is a provision about the liability of other participants, and its scope of application should be limited to the participants of the event.

In this case, Tong's injury was not caused by the behavior of other participants, and did not meet the applicable conditions of willingness to risk.

As a consumer, Tong Mou, in accordance with the precautions of the trampoline game project in the venue, obeyed the instructions of the staff of the gymnasium. There is no situation that may cause personal injury listed in the safety notice agreement or precautions, and his behavior is not improper.

Therefore, the gymnasium failed to fulfill its safety protection obligations and caused Tong's above-mentioned damages, and should be fully liable for Tong's losses.

  The gym refused to accept the judgment and appealed one by one.

The court of second instance upheld the original judgment, which will take effect on March 26, 2022.

At present, the case has entered the enforcement stage. The court has seized the machinery and equipment of the sports hall in accordance with the law, and the enforcement work is in progress.