Injured after being jokingly thrown out of balcony by peers while on holiday

Identified as grade 10 disabled, because the injured person did not refuse to make trouble with friends, the infringer is reduced by 20% of the responsibility

　　Wan Chengyuan

　　Two men carried their traveling companions to the edge of the 10-meter-high balcony of the resort guest room, jokingly trying to throw them out. The result turned out to be a fake, causing the other party to be handicapped at grade 10... Recently, this special case heard by the People's Court of Ningxiang City, Hunan Province attracted widespread attention.

　　The Yangzi Evening News/Ziniu News reporter noticed that the judgment of the case disclosed a detail that the man who was thrown out of the balcony did not express his refusal in the face of the noise of his friends, and also claimed that "if you have something, you will throw me down." Try", and it was precisely because of this sentence that the injured ultimately lost more than 40,000 yuan in compensation.

What is the reason for this?

What warnings and reminders did this case bring?

Yangzi Evening News/Ziniu News reporter Wan Chengyuan

　　what happened

　　He was thrown out of the balcony by his partner, causing a total loss of more than 200,000 yuan

　　In March 2020, He and his companions traveled to Zhangjiajie, and the four stayed at a resort.

　　One afternoon, He Mou, Wen Mou and Wang Mou were chatting on the balcony of the resort guest room, and their companions joked that they would throw He Mou from the balcony.

During the joke, Wen Mou and Wang Mou lifted He Mou with the chair together and leaned against the balcony guardrail, pretending to fall out.

Unexpectedly, the balcony guardrail broke, and He and Wang rolled onto the road below.

　　The balcony was nearly ten meters above the ground. Afterwards, He was sent to a local hospital for treatment, which cost nearly 5,000 yuan for 4 days of hospitalization.

Subsequently, He was transferred to Changsha for treatment, and spent more than 80,000 yuan in hospital for 25 days.

According to judicial appraisal, after the mandibular fracture of He Mou, there was 1 degree of mouth opening limitation, which constituted a grade 10 disability; after the fracture of the left tibial plateau and the avulsion of the posterior cruciate ligament of the left knee joint, the left knee joint dysfunction was left. constitute a tenth-degree disability.

He Mou sued Wen Mou, Wang Mou and the resort to the People's Court of Ningxiang City, Hunan Province. After the court approved, He Mou lost a total of more than 200,000 yuan in medical expenses, nursing expenses, and compensation for disability.

　　Yangzi Evening News/Ziniu News reporter learned from the judgment of the case that He, Wen, and Wang were both born in the 90s, and several young people were injured because of their playfulness and almost caused an even greater tragedy.

The reporter also noticed that a detail was disclosed in the judgment. At that time, He did not expressly reject Wen and Wang's actions of lifting it up and throwing it out, and claimed that "if there is something, just throw me down and try."

It was this sentence that changed the division of responsibilities in the case, and finally reduced the amount of compensation it should receive by more than 40,000 yuan.

　　Division of responsibilities

　　What are the responsibilities of the partner?

　　The reporter noticed that the case was quite special, and the three parties, the companion, the resort and He, seemed to have something to do with the accident.

So what are the responsibilities of the three parties?

　　Wen Mou and Wang Mou lifted He Mou to the edge of the balcony guardrail in a joking manner. Subjectively, they did not intend to hurt He Mou, but caused the injury consequence of He Mou falling from the balcony. Behavior is directly related.

The court held that the two persons, as persons with full capacity for civil conduct, should have foreseen and prevented the occurrence of the damage, so they should be jointly and severally liable for the damage caused by He.

　　The court held that, considering the degree of fault of the two persons and the causal force of their actions, Wen and Wang, as the direct perpetrators of the tortious act, should bear the main responsibility for the accident, and it is appropriate for them to bear 60% of the responsibility for the accident, and to bear the responsibility equally. Liability for compensation.

　　Should the resort be liable?

　　After on-site investigation, the balcony where the accident occurred was nearly ten meters away from the ground, and the only protective measure for the balcony was a wooden guardrail.

Although the resort invites special personnel to perform maintenance on a regular basis, as a profitable hotel manager, it should perform a higher degree of safety protection obligations than the general public place managers to ensure that there are no potential safety hazards, and to protect the personal, personal, and personal safety of consumers in the hotel. Property security.

　　The court held that there was an indirect causal relationship between the fracture of the guardrail and the consequences of the damage.

At the same time, the resort stated that the height of the balcony railing of the house involved is 1.04m, which is inconsistent with the 1.2m stipulated in the national standard, and there is a potential safety hazard.

　　The court held that the resort should undertake corresponding supplementary responsibilities within the scope of its security obligations, and decided to assume 20% of the supplementary responsibilities.

　　It is also understood that the resort paid part of the medical expenses for He.

　　Was the injured person at fault?

　　The court held that 23-year-old He, as a person with full capacity for civil conduct, had considerable experience in daily life, and should have a correct understanding of the danger of being lifted up and thrown out by others on a balcony nearly ten meters high. , should be aware that playing on the balcony is prone to accidents, and should pay more attention to their own safety to prevent accidents.

　　However, He not only did not stop the behavior of his companions, did not express his rejection clearly, but also stimulated and catered to Wen and Wang's playful and slapstick behavior with the language of "if you have one, throw me down and try it out". lead to the outcome of this case.

　　The court held that He was at fault for the occurrence of his own damage, and the liability of the infringer could be mitigated, and the proportion of liability to be mitigated should be 20% based on comprehensive consideration.

　　Lawyer's statement

　　Operators should pay attention to safety and security obligations, and the responsibility of for-profit sites is heavier

　　The Ningxiang Court made a first-instance judgment based on the division of responsibilities, and both the plaintiff and the defendant appealed.

In the second instance, the Changsha Intermediate People's Court maintained the division of the proportion of responsibilities of each party in the first instance, and at the same time adjusted the amount of He's various losses to more than 220,000 yuan.

The Changsha Intermediate People's Court made a final judgment accordingly, and Wen Mou and Wang Mou each compensated He Mou for 66,000 yuan for various losses; the resort deducted the advanced medical expenses of more than 24,000 yuan, and needed to compensate more than 19,000 yuan.

　　"This case reminds people to pay attention to 'degree' when joking, otherwise they have to 'pay the bill' and bear legal responsibility for the damage caused by joking too much." Chen Mei, director of Jiangsu Huacai Law Firm, believes that the case also reminds operators, management The customer must fulfill the obligation of safety protection, otherwise, as in this case, it seems that the damage was caused by fighting between customers, but they still need to bear the corresponding tort liability.

　　She introduced that Article 1198 of the Civil Code clearly stipulates this issue.

In judicial practice, to determine whether the operator has fulfilled its security obligations, in addition to judging whether it has met the statutory standards, it can also be judged by whether it has met the general standards of the industry.

In addition, it also depends on whether the standard of a good manager is met, and the general public perception of a public place is used as the standard to check whether the place has reached the reasonable level of attention that should be achieved.

Generally speaking, public places for profit, such as shopping malls and hotels, have more safety obligations to consumers than non-profit places such as free parks and libraries.

　　Chen Mei suggested that operating public places should strengthen the safety awareness of employees, establish a sound safety management system and implement special personnel; potential risks should be dealt with in a timely manner and clear warning signs should be set up; in addition, corresponding commercial Insurance reduces the risk burden.