Compiled from: Changsha Furong District People's Court, Hunan Higher People's Court

When accidentally injured while providing labor, the worker was alone outside the hospital emergency room. In a critical moment urgently needing money for surgery, the employer offered to pay the surgery fee but no further costs. Can a compensation agreement signed under such urgency be revoked?

Case Review

Defendant Li Yang (pseudonym) contracted the renovation work of a villa and hired Zhao Wei (pseudonym) as a carpenter. On the afternoon of January 17, 2022, Zhao Wei accidentally fell from a scaffold at the worksite and was injured.

After hospitalization, Zhao Wei urgently needed surgery and signed an agreement with Li Yang, stating: "Li Yang is responsible for paying Zhao Wei's surgery fee, but is not responsible for any other costs. From then on, Li Yang bears no liability for Zhao Wei's fall injury." Later, Zhao Wei was assessed with a level-nine disability. Li Yang paid only the surgery fee and no other costs. Zhao Wei then sued in Changsha Furong District People's Court, seeking to revoke the agreement and demanding Li Yang pay over 300,000 yuan in disability compensation, nursing fees, lost wages, etc. Defendant Li Yang claimed he did not coerce Zhao Wei into signing the agreement and had paid as agreed, so no further payment was due.

The court held that the dispute focused on: Can a compensation agreement signed under urgency after injury be revoked?

Based on facts established at trial, the agreement was signed between Zhao Wei's hospitalization and surgery. Zhao Wei signed it without fully understanding the potential injury and consequences, and in urgent need of surgery funds. He was in a distressed state lacking proper judgment. The fees Li Yang agreed to pay under the agreement were significantly less than those Zhao Wei claimed in this case, reducing Li Yang's obligations. This caused an imbalance in rights and obligations, resulting in substantial loss to Zhao Wei, making it manifestly unfair and subject to revocation. Thus, the court supported Zhao Wei's claims.

The final court ruling determined that, considering the degree of fault of both parties and taking into account factors such as the causal relationship between the parties' actions and the resulting damages, as well as their ability to bear responsibility, the defendant was ordered to bear 60% of the compensation liability for Zhao Wei's reasonable economic losses, amounting to over 130,000 yuan, while Zhao Wei himself bore 40% of the responsibility. After the first-instance judgment, neither the plaintiff nor the defendant appealed, and the case has now taken effect.

　The Civil Code

Article 151

If one party takes advantage of the other party's distress, lack of judgment, or other circumstances, resulting in a manifestly unfair civil legal act at the time of its establishment, the aggrieved party has the right to request the people's court or an arbitration institution to revoke it.

[4] Author's Opinion

Although entering into a contract is a free agreement based on the parties' autonomy of will, if the contract's formation violates statutory circumstances, the parties have the right to request the court to revoke it. In judicial practice, whether a contract constitutes manifest unfairness is generally analyzed from both subjective and objective elements. Subjectively, it involves whether one party intentionally took advantage of its superior position or the other party's recklessness, inexperience, etc., to enter into a manifestly unfair contract. Objectively, it involves whether the contract's terms clearly violate the principles of fairness and equivalent compensation, and whether the interests of both parties are significantly imbalanced.

Civil subjects engaging in civil activities shall follow the principles of fairness and good faith, reasonably determine the rights and obligations of each party, and must not violate legal provisions. An individual attempting to exempt themselves from liability or increase the other party's burden through a written agreement is neither ethical nor in line with the fundamental principles of law and will not be protected by law.