Consumer dies after violent altercation, operator cannot escape liability for compensation
Compiled from: Shandong High Court, Qixia Court
Case review
In March 2022, Li and Li Moumou were playing mahjong at a chess and card room operated by Liu. During the game, a quarrel broke out between Li and Li Moumou over settling accounts. Li Moumou threw a punch at Li, and after being pulled apart, Li Moumou, still dissatisfied, hit Li again. The two then went home separately. After returning home, Li appeared pale and emotionally agitated, and subsequently fainted. He was urgently sent to the hospital by his family for emergency treatment but ultimately died due to ineffective resuscitation (later it was found that Li had underlying brain and heart conditions). Li's wife, Sun, believed that Li Moumou's insulting and assaulting behavior was the direct cause of Li's death, and that Liu, as the operator of the chess and card room, should bear fault liability. She therefore sued Li Moumou and Liu in the Qixia Court, requesting the two to pay for medical expenses, funeral expenses, death compensation, mental consolation fees, and more, totaling over 1.29 million yuan.
The court held that Li, as the perpetrator, should bear compensation responsibility for his own actions; Liu, as the operator of the chess and card room, although only providing the venue and having no harmful actions toward Li, should also bear corresponding compensation responsibility for the damages suffered by Li because, as the provider of the venue, charging each individual who comes to entertain has a profit-making nature.
In the end, after the presiding judge clarified the situation, Liu voluntarily paid Li the corresponding amount of compensation. The perpetrator, also considering their own wrongful actions, paid compensation to Li. Ultimately, all parties reached a settlement, and the case was successfully resolved.
Civil Code of the People's Republic of China
[4] Article 1198
Operators, managers, or organizers of business premises, public places such as hotels, shopping malls, banks, stations, airports, sports venues, and entertainment venues, or mass activities, who fail to fulfill their safety guarantee obligations and cause harm to others, shall bear tort liability. If harm is caused to others by the actions of a third party, the third party shall bear tort liability; if the operator, manager, or organizer fails to fulfill their safety guarantee obligations, they shall bear corresponding supplementary liability. After bearing supplementary liability, the operator, manager, or organizer may seek recourse from the third party.
[1] The author's perspective
From the perspective of this case, we need to pay attention to two aspects. First, operators must fulfill their duty of safety assurance and have emergency handling capabilities to respond to sudden incidents. Although operators are not the ones who actually commit the infringement, they are legally responsible for the personal and property safety of consumers, potential consumers, or others who enter the service premises. This also reminds operators that they should not turn a blind eye or ignore similar incidents in their daily operations.
On the other hand, for consumers, there is nothing wrong with daily entertainment consumption, but when faced with an issue, they should think rationally and handle it calmly. Once an infringement dispute arises, they should learn to use legal means to protect themselves, rather than resolving it roughly.
