"Wild Swimming" drowned, is managers in public places responsible?

Every summer is a period of high incidence of drowning accidents, especially some wild rivers, ponds, reservoirs, etc., "wild swimming" causes dying accidents frequently. Recently, the Bacheng People's Court of the Kunshan People's Court of Jiangsu Province tried the disputes caused by the drowning of the "wild swimming". After the young guy "wild swimming" was unfortunately drowned, the parents would sue the village committee of the incident to the court to the court. Require compensation for losses.

After the trial, the court believed that the village committee had fulfilled the corresponding safety protection responsibilities and had no fault to the drowning accident, and should not be liable for compensation.

What are the safety guarantee obligations that management places and public places managers should bear? Is the security guarantee obligations undertaken by the manager of non -operating public places the same as the manager of operating public places? What is the measure of the measurement of security obligations ... The reporter interviewed the judge of this case and interpreted the above issues in detail.

The guy "wild swimming" drowning

One day in July 2021, 19 -year -old Xiao Chen and three friends went to Dajiaohe, Bacheng Town, Kunshan City to swim, and accidentally drowned and died. Although the companions were actively rescued, they still failed to restore Xiao Chen's life.

Xiao Chen's parents believe that there are no fences and related warning signs on the incident of the incident, nor did they take relevant safety protection measures. A villager committee in Basheng Town, Kunshan City, as a unit under the jurisdiction of the river. The serious consequences of death. In January of this year, Xiao Chen's parents reported the village committee to the court on the grounds of violation of security and security, asking for compensation for compensation for compensation and funeral expenses of 586,000 yuan.

Regarding Xiao Chen's drowning reasons, Xiao Chen's parents believed that his son died unexpectedly during the walking and playing process by the river. However, according to the situation learned from the public security department, the village committee believed that Xiao Chen was drowning and dying when swimming with his friends that night, and was not an accident when Xiao Chen's parents said when playing by the big cockri.

In addition, the on -site photos provided by the village committee showed that Xiao Chen's drowning location had clear "river and water depth" and "prohibited swimming". The village committee believes that from the perspective of safety protection, it has fulfilled the responsibility of safety protection and should not be liable for compensation.

According to the evidence of the Pakistani of the Kunshan People's Court, according to the party's statement and review and identification, it was determined that Xiao Chen was drowned when he swimd in the river, and there were signs such as "warning", "deep water", and "prohibiting swimming" by the river channel involved in the case.

After hearing this case, the case was tried that the incident was an open natural area and was not a operating public place. It could not demand the standard and degree of the village committee to fulfill the standards of security and guarantee obligations than the managers of operating public places. From the perspective of the scene, there is a warning logo for prohibiting swimming next to the river channel. It has fulfilled the corresponding safety guarantee obligations. The manager should not be blame the managers to set up warning signs and protection measures for the dangerous waters. The obligation to ensure the guarantee of basic security common sense will greatly increase the cost of social management. As an adult, Xiao Chen should have sufficient awareness of the high danger of swimming in the dark now. It is subjectively in danger. Unfortunately drowning and dying, the consequences are regrettable, but the defendant's village committee has no fault. Based on this rejection of Xiao Chen's parents' claims.

Non -operating places safety guarantee obligations are lower than operating places

For operators and managers in operating places and public places, relevant laws have clearly clarified the safety guarantee obligation that the corresponding subject should bear.

On May 1, 2004, the "Supreme People's Court's Interpretation of Several Issues of the Application of Laws on Personal Damage Compensation Cases" was implemented for the first time. Article 37 of the original infringement liability law absorbs the content, and Article 1,98 of the Civil Code expands the main body of the responsibility for security guarantee obligations on the basis of this.

According to the relevant provisions of the Civil Code, hotels, malls, banks, stations, airports, stadiums, entertainment venues and other operating places, operators, managers, or organizers of public places have not fulfilled their obligations of safety and guarantee, causing their obligations, causing it, causing it to cause the obligation of security and guarantee. If others are damaged, they should bear the liability for infringement. However, relevant laws do not make specific provisions on the content of "security obligations".

Tang Min, a judge of the undertaking judge and the Kunshan People's Court, explained that the legal basis for the law of security obligations is to prevent the danger of the danger in the place, and then the social security obligations that do not have harmfulness, including the operator at the operating venue for consumption, consumption of consumption at the operating venue. The personality and property security obligations of the personal and property security of potential consumers, or other persons entering the service venue are based on the law.

Due to the different cases of cases, the operator's security obligations are also different, and the responsibilities should be different. Tang Min said that there are many kinds of social venues in practice. The size of the venue, whether it belongs to the profit agency, and whether the object is specific, etc., has a different degree of impact on the content of the obligations of security guarantee, and requires case analysis. Specifically, in judicial practice, the hardware facilities, service management, security measures, etc. of the operator are all factors that need to be considered. Judges can exercise free tailoring within the scope of the law according to the facts of the case.

Compared with operating public places, generally speaking, the security obligations of non -operating public places are relatively low. Tang Min said that according to the principle of coexisting risks and income, business places have more profitable profit, high degree of professionalism, and high degree of openness. Its safety and guarantee obligations should be higher than non -profit, low professionalism, and low degree of openness to the society. Or managers, as non -operating public places, cannot blame the standards and degree of security obligations that managers performed higher than the managers of operating public places. For this case, Tang Min believes that the wild river channel is not a service or public place or a public place where the public operates with the public. The guarantee obligation.

In addition, Tang Min also reminded that there is a controversy in the practice whether there is a security obligation to ensure the security guarantee obligations in the wild river manager.

The reporter noticed that in the "Top Ten Typical Cases of the Civil Code of the People's Congress of the Provincial Council in 2021" announced by the Jiangxi Provincial Higher People's Court, it was targeted at whether the wild river manager in the case of violation of security and security obligations had the obligation of security guarantee obligations. After hearing, the Yujiang District People's Court of Yingtan City believes that the river in the wild is not a "operating place and public place" that provides services to the public or the public as a target. It has the obligation to ensure security.

Taking the "reasonable limit" as the measurement standard

The "Explanation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues of the Application of Laws on Personal Damage Compensation Cases" provisions for the first time of security guarantee obligations, and the obligation to security is limited to the scope of "reasonable limit". Although the original infringement liability law and the civil code did not mention the term "reasonable limit" in the relevant laws and regulations, some judicial organs mentioned in the dissertation of discussing the criteria that violates the obligations of security guarantee. During behavior, it should still be based on the "reasonable limit 'as a criterion for judgment and as one of the constituent elements of civil liability."

Tang Min also believes that judging whether the operators and managers can do their best to security, and should consider whether the operators and managers should do their best to reach the degree of safety guarantee that the same type or the same type of operators should reach. The reasonable attention should be achieved by people.

In response to this case, Tang Min believes that even if the river managers need to bear the obligation to security, they should be limited to a reasonable limit, and must not have no boundaries or one -size -fits -all.

Tang Min explained that the incident of the river is not a place to provide services to the public or the public as a target. Set up security measures such as protective railing. Natural river channels belong to public places and are dangerous. As riverside people can take measures to set up a warning logo or set up guardrails in the necessary location, the river channel is generally long. , Protecting everywhere will greatly increase unnecessary social costs, and will also affect other social functions such as river irrigation and viewing.

What circumstances should the river managers take responsibility for such "wild swimming" drowning cases? Tang Min said that if the river manager has not erected the logo and fails to fulfill the obligation of security reminder, he may bear responsibility. However, she also emphasized whether to take responsibility for comprehensive analysis of the parties' own fault.

The reporter noticed that in practice, there are cases of village committees as managers who have not fulfilled management responsibilities and security obligations.

In a case of a living right to concluded in 2017 in the Xiuyu District People's Court of Putian City, Fujian Province, three people including Meng drowned during swimming in the pond. The stone pit formed back, and then form a pond. As the owner and manager of the ponds involved in the pond involved in the case, the ponds were not renovated and recovered to the ponds, which caused a pond; after the pond was formed, no safety protection measures were taken. The masonry fence or protective fence caused Meng to swim and drowns in the pond. The village committee failed to do its management responsibilities and security obligations, let the existence of hidden safety hazards, and have certain faults, and should also bear 10%of the liability for compensation.

After trial, the Xiuyu District People's Court supported the claim from Meng's family members, and believed that there was a certain fault in the village committee of the management unit, and the fault was related to the occurrence of the accident involved. Dingjia, the village committee shall bear 10%of the liability for compensation. (□ Reporter Pan Qiao)

Source: Democratic and Legal Times

Disclaimer: Reproduced this article out of the purpose of passing more information and conducive to the law of law. If there is an error or infringe your legitimate rights and interests, the author is requested to contact the Law of Qinghai with the authority. We will correct and delete it in time. Thank you.

- END -