Li Xin fell while skiing and was injured when Zhang Lan, who was skiing behind, collided with him because Li failed to leave the slope promptly. Li Xin demanded compensation from the ski resort, claiming it had failed to fulfill its safety obligations. Recently, the Beijing No. 1 Intermediate People’s Court concluded the case and ultimately rejected Li Xin’s claim.
On January 11, 2015, Li Xin fell while skiing and, unable to leave the slope in time, collided with Zhang Lan, who was skiing behind. After the collision, ski patrol staff and Zhang Lan took Li Xin to the resort’s medical room, but due to the severity of his injuries, he was later hospitalized at the PLA 309 Hospital. Li Xin argued that the ski resort’s staff failed to provide timely assistance after his fall, leading to the collision with Zhang Lan, and that the resort had not fulfilled its reasonable duty to help. Therefore, he sued both Zhang Lan for the tort and the ski resort for failing to ensure safety, demanding compensation from both.
The ski resort argued that it had consistently reminded visitors to stay safe through broadcasts and warning signs, and had staff patrolling the slopes. Moreover, Li Xin’s injury was caused by Zhang Lan’s collision, and the resort’s staff had promptly provided aid after the incident, fulfilling their safety obligations. Thus, the resort should not be liable for compensation.
Zhang Lan argued that after Li Xin fell, he remained standing on a no-stopping section of the slope, and Li was wearing white clothing instead of the bright colors required by the resort. These factors made it impossible for Zhang to see Li as he descended the slope. Therefore, Li Xin’s injury was entirely due to his own actions, and Zhang refused to compensate him.
The first-instance court ruled that Li Xin had failed to exercise reasonable care and bore significant fault, while the ski resort had fulfilled its safety obligations within reasonable limits. The court ultimately assigned 20% of the liability to Zhang Lan and 80% to Li Xin. Dissatisfied, Li Xin appealed to the Beijing No. 1 Intermediate People’s Court, seeking to overturn the original verdict.
The Beijing No. 1 Intermediate People’s Court held that skiing is a high-speed sport involving jumps, turns, and descents on snow using equipment, inherently carrying risks. As a fully capable adult, Li Xin should have been aware of these inherent dangers, taken protective measures, and avoided hazards. By choosing this risky recreational activity, he also accepted the potential dangers alongside the enjoyment. Additionally, Li Xin wore a light-colored down jacket instead of the ski resort’s provided attire, lingered on the slope after falling, and failed to signal his presence. Thus, he bore significant fault for the accident, and the original ruling assigning 20% liability to Zhang Lan and 80% to Li Xin was appropriate.
The ski resort displayed safety notices prominently in the changing rooms, broadcast safety reminders throughout the slopes, and deployed patrols. After the collision between Li Xin and Zhang Lan, patrol staff quickly arrived, treated Li Xin at the on-site medical room, and transported him for further care. Rescue operations in such a specialized environment differ from regular roads, and expecting ski resort operators to immediately remove every fallen skier from the slope under all circumstances would be unreasonable. Therefore, the ski resort had met its basic safety obligations and should not be liable. Ultimately, the Beijing No. 1 Intermediate People’s Court dismissed Li Xin’s appeal and upheld the original verdict.
(All names in this article are pseudonyms)