Injured from slipping on snow accumulated on shoe soles, the hotpot restaurant must also compensate.
[2] Compiled from: Shandong High Court, People's Court Daily
[3] It is said that hotpot and snowy scenery are a perfect match on a heavy snow day, but slipping and getting injured due to snow on the soles of shoes while eating hotpot is not worth it. In such cases, who should bear the responsibility for the accident?
Case review
[4] One winter day in 2021, Zhen went to Hotpot Restaurant A for a company dinner. During the meal, colleague Jia noticed that Zhen had not returned after leaving. After searching with the restaurant staff, they found Zhen had fallen on the staircase between the first and second floors and sent him to the hospital for treatment.
[5] Zhen argued that Hotpot Restaurant A failed to fulfill its duty of safety assurance and should bear tort liability. The restaurant countered that there were clear "Caution: Wet Floor" signs on the stairs, claiming it had fulfilled its safety obligations and should not be liable for Zhen's compensation.
[6] The court held that, based on the call recording provided by Zhen, Hotpot Restaurant A admitted that snow on the road caused guests to bring snow water into the store on their soles, making the floor slippery and leading to Zhen's fall. The restaurant, while welcoming guests, should provide a safe dining environment to ensure basic personal safety. Knowing that snowy weather would make the floor slippery and prone to causing falls, the restaurant should have taken effective preventive measures or clearly informed guests, promptly cleaned the snow water, and kept the floor dry to prevent accidents. Due to the restaurant's negligence in prevention, Zhen fell on the staircase during his meal, indicating that the restaurant failed to fulfill its duty of safety assurance within reasonable limits and should bear corresponding tort liability. However, as a fully capable adult, Zhen should have ensured his own safety while walking but failed to exercise sufficient caution, contributing to the incident. Therefore, based on the respective faults of both parties, the court ruled that Hotpot Restaurant A should bear 20% of the liability.
Civil Code of the People's Republic of China
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.
[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
The function of a warning sign is not only to alert others but also represents a responsibility of the operator of a public place. For example, in this case, since the restaurant operator had already considered that customers might slip and fall on snowy days, they could have taken an extra step, such as laying down carpets or absorbent cloths, to further prevent accidents.
From another perspective, although the hot pot restaurant operator in this case bore part of the responsibility, the primary responsibility still lies with the customer. This shows that paying close attention to safety in daily life is not only being responsible for oneself but also avoiding subsequent troubles.
