How to determine liability for a fall in a water park?

Compiled from: Gaoqing Court, Shandong High Court
 
The dog days of summer arrive with waves of heat, making water parks a popular spot for residents to cool off, but danger also arises unnoticed, leading to the dispute in this case.

Case review
On July 25, 2020, the plaintiff Li visited the defendant's water park. After finishing the surfing activity and heading to the next attraction, he accidentally fell and injured himself on a staircase. Judicial appraisal determined that Li's right ankle joint mobility limitation constituted a Level 10 disability, with a nursing period of 60 days, a work loss period of 180 days, and a nutrition period of 90 days. Li filed a lawsuit with the court for expenses including nursing fees, hospitalization meal subsidies, disability compensation, nutrition fees, and lost work income.
 
This case involves a dispute arising from a breach of safety guarantee obligations. The water park operated by the defendant is a public entertainment venue, and as the operator and actual manager, the defendant bears the duty of safety guarantee. The defendant failed to provide evidence that safety warning signs were placed at the accident site at the time of the incident, so the court found the defendant had not fulfilled its safety guarantee obligations. As an adult with full civil capacity, the plaintiff should have understood the potential dangers of water activities and exercised greater caution to ensure personal safety, thus bearing primary responsibility for the resulting harm. Ultimately, the court determined that the plaintiff Li bore 80% responsibility for the accident, while the defendant water park bore 20% responsibility. The court ruled: First, the defendant water park shall pay the plaintiff Li a total of 30,000.00 yuan for nursing fees, hospitalization meal subsidies, disability compensation, nutrition fees, lost work income, transportation fees, and appraisal fees within ten days of this judgment taking effect; Second, the plaintiff Li's other claims were dismissed. After the first-instance judgment, no party appealed. The first-instance judgment has become legally effective.
 
 
Civil Code of the People's Republic of China
[4] Article 1198
[5] Operators, managers of business premises such as hotels, shopping malls, banks, stations, airports, sports venues, entertainment venues, or organizers of mass activities, who fail to fulfill their safety guarantee obligations, causing harm to others, shall bear tort liability.
If harm is caused to another person by the act of a third party, the third party shall bear tort liability; if the business operator, manager, or organizer fails to fulfill the duty of security, they shall bear corresponding supplementary liability. After bearing supplementary liability, the business operator, manager, or organizer may seek recourse from the third party.
 
Article 1173
If the injured party is also at fault for the occurrence or escalation of the same damage, the liability of the tortfeasor may be reduced.
 
 
[1] The author's perspective
According to the above legal provisions, the safety guarantee obligations of operators and managers should not be limited to ensuring the use and operation of facilities within the premises but should also include taking necessary preventive measures against potential dangers in the setup and operation of facilities, such as installing warning signs, to prevent harm. Even when harm occurs, necessary rescue measures should be taken to prevent further escalation of the damage.
 
For consumers, when entering public places or participating in group activities, they should also exercise caution regarding their own safety to prevent danger. It is worth noting that liability for torts involving breach of safety guarantee obligations still applies the principle of fault-based liability, so the allocation of responsibility should be reasonably determined based on the degree of fault of both parties.