【Facts】In recent years, the emerging immersive reality game market of escape room is hot, and it is loved by some teenagers with its characteristics of puzzle, challenge, and interactivity. However, during the game, if an accident happens to the participants, who is responsible? A few days ago, the Shanghai Pudong New Area People's Court concluded a tort liability dispute case caused by the accidental injury of a minor participating in the escape room.
Zhao, a 13-year-old student, and his classmates went to an escape room shop to play. Before the tour, all participants signed the admission pledge provided by the staff. The content of the admission pledge contains the horror element of the game, and the participant confirms that he or she does not have cardiovascular and cerebrovascular diseases, mental diseases, pregnant women and minors, etc. are prohibited from entering. During the game, the staff played the role to interact with the player, and student Chen pushed Zhao in front of him because he was frightened, causing Zhao to fall and injured his face. Zhao sued Chen and his guardian, the company operating the escape room, to the court, demanding damages.
Based on the fault of all parties, the court found that the operating company of the escape room bore primary responsibility for the accident, and Chen and Zhao bore secondary responsibility. The court finally ruled that the company compensated Zhao for the loss of medical expenses totaling more than 14,2 yuan, and Chen's guardian paid a total of more than <>,<> yuan for the loss of medical expenses.
According to the provisions of the Civil Code, operators of entertainment venues and other business establishments shall bear tort liability if they fail to fulfill their security obligations and cause damage to others.
The judge said that the company operating the escape room should bear the duty of security. The admission commitment letter is a format document, and the admission target should not include minors, and the company failed to carefully verify this and did not fulfill sufficient safety warning obligations; The perfect reminder obligation was not fulfilled before admission, the potential safety hazards of the incident were not eliminated, and the company had gross negligence in the management of the venue and should bear the main liability for compensation.
Chen was pushed and bumped into Zhao due to fright in the game, although it was not intentional, but objectively caused harm to Zhao and should bear the corresponding civil liability. At the same time, Zhao himself lacked sufficient understanding of the dangers of wearing glasses to participate in games, neglected his own duty of care for safety management, and his parents did not fulfill reasonable safety education obligations for their children, so they were at fault for their own damage and should also bear certain responsibilities.
The judge reminded that the operators of escape rooms should consciously standardize their operation and management, and truly protect the lawful rights and interests of minors. At the same time, the safety protection of minors is the due duty of guardians. Guardians should carefully teach minors to be cautious when entering playgrounds with potential safety hazards, appropriately supervise the daily consumption of minors, etc., to avoid similar safety accidents.
(Case source: Supreme People's Court, compiled by Wei Zhezhe, reporter of this newspaper)