Jiaozhou: The dense room escapes the lives, the operator and the mall of the mall

As the dense room escape game has become a new favorite of social networking, accidents related to security have gradually increased. In the aftermath of the accident, there are many controversy in the legal collision of relevant parties, and there are many places worth exploring. There are such cases in Jiaozhou, Shandong. Customers have died when they escaped the game in the mall to play secret rooms. In the subsequent compensation disputes, the operator of the game and the mall of the venue leasing have conducted two rounds of claims, which is quite complicated.

The complex reason is that in order to obtain the understanding of the victim's family members and obtain the lighter result of the victim's family, the operator of the game needs to pay huge compensation. In the case of unable to pay the game operator in full, the mall undertakes part of the compensation and a repayment agreement is made through the form of an agreement. After that, there was a problem with the repayment. The two parties and the game operator believed that the repayment agreement violated the principle of fairness and integrity and should be modified. Their approach was accused of disassembling the bridge by the mall.

So how did the court trial? Let's take a look at the specific situation.

At the beginning of 2018, a couple of the 80s rented a site of about 350 square meters of Jiaozhou Liquan Shopping Plaza for operating the escape project of the secret room. In early 2019, when a customer escaped the project in the dense room, it was accidentally died due to equipment failure. The husband, Mr. Han among the husband and wife, was detained for negligence and killing. , Buying game equipment and components, after being installed and debugging without relevant qualifications, they do not apply for fire -fighting and safety -related inspections and acceptance, causing customers to die.

In order to obtain the understanding of the family members and the result of the criminal judgment, Mr. Han and his wife needed to compensate 1.18 million yuan.

But they can only make up 400,000 yuan. In desperation, after multiple coordination, Jiaozhou Liqun Mall made up for compensation, and signed an agreement with Mr. Han's party under the witness of the Sanlihe Police Station and the Management Committee, agreed that Party A (Mr. Han and his wife) is one -time directed to direction. The family members of the deceased compensated 1.18 million yuan. Because Party A had no ability to pay, Party A actually paid 400,000 yuan, and the remaining 780,000 yuan was paid by Party B (Jiaozhou Liqun Plaza). Specific repayment matters will be agreed separately.

Because of the 780,000 yuan paid, the two parties went to court for the first time in 2021.

The lawsuit was filed by Jiaozhou Liqun, because Mr. Han and his wife did not repay the money.

The couple of Mr. Han believe that they bear all the liability for compensation to violate the principles of fairness and integrity of civil law. Both parties are the main body of compensation, and they should be responsible for the incident at the same time and do not recognize the content of the agreement.

After hearing, the court believed whether the "Agreement" violated the principle of fairness and integrity, and should be analyzed and judged based on basic legal relations. Mr. Han and his wife did not handle any fire -fighting, safety -related inspections and acceptance. As a result, the customer's accident caused by the fault of the equipment, and the main compensation should be liable. As the lessee of the venue, Jiaozhou Liqun Shopping Mall should strengthen the supervision and management of the dense room escape from the business, and fulfill its obligations to ensure the safety of customers. If the project has not handled any fire, safety -related inspections and acceptance The consequences of accidental death should also bear certain fault responsibility.

Therefore, the court determined that although the "Agreement" was voluntarily reached, it was agreed that Mr. Han would bear all compensation for the amount and was failed. The responsibility ratio of the two parties should be 8: 2. Jiaozhou Liquan Shopping Mall bear 20%of the responsibility, and the amount of compensation is 544,000 yuan.

After the verdict came out, Jiaozhou Liqun Plaza was very dissatisfied and appealed.

They believe that the case is based on the right of compensation caused by the "Agreement". The court of first instance court was tried in accordance with the trial of the infringement liability dispute, and the referee and the responsibility sharing were inconsistent with the facts. Moreover, Mr. Han's behavior of crossing the river disassembly seriously violated the principles of honesty and facilities and should not be supported.

The court of the second instance confirmed that this case was a dispute over the right to recovery. The focus question was whether the parties of the mall had the right to pursue all the 780,000 yuan paid.

The court of the second instance determined that the malls were neglected to supervise and manage, and there was also a mistake in the occurrence of the accident. Therefore, its cushion behavior was not based on its own obligation to fulfill its own responsibility. Moreover, the "Agreement" also stipulates that the specific repayment of paid payments will be agreed separately. Therefore, the mall should also be liable for compensation, and there is no right to recover all 780,000 yuan in paid.

In the end, the court of second instance supported the judgment of the first instance court.

After reading the trial of the case, I wonder if readers and friends want to discuss?

Text/Li Jinwen

Edit: Xiao Hualin

- END -