This article is reprinted from
---Jin Yasu, profession: lawyer, member of the Guangxi Lawyers Association, and also an absolute outdoor sports enthusiast—a hiker.
"Risks and Legal Liabilities of Outdoor Adventure Sports"
......Here, the main focus is to conduct a superficial discussion on the legal issue of risks and legal liabilities in outdoor sports, and to attempt to find possible and feasible ways to reasonably avoid such risks within the existing legal framework. As the saying goes, “the stone of other mountains can be used to polish jade”—for now, let’s just consider this as throwing out a brick to attract jade. In order to highlight the unique characteristics of risks and responsibilities in outdoor sports, I will not talk broadly about general outdoor activities here, but only about the specific type of outdoor adventure sports. Please bear with me.
I.
Concepts:
1.
Adventure: Generally speaking, adventure refers to conducting investigative activities in dangerous and rarely visited places, or places that no one has ever been to. Specifically in the context of outdoor sports, it can be expanded to include outdoor sports activities carried out in natural environments outside of tourist-built or open areas, which carry potential dangers and unforeseeable hazards. These include, but are not limited to: trekking through virgin jungles, deserts, and snowfields, climbing high mountains or ultra-high mountains, stream and canyon descent rafting, exploring sinkholes and caves, climbing coastal cliffs and rocks, etc.
2.
Risk: Refers to potential dangers or hazards that may occur, are difficult to predict accurately, and cannot be completely prevented. In outdoor adventure sports, it refers to dangers or hazards that, although foreseeable based on the cognitive abilities of the average participant, are hard to judge accurately in terms of occurrence or outcome. Examples include being struck by lightning, rockfalls, mountain floods, falls, stepping into empty space, drowning, snake bites, etc. For instance, crossing a river beach in the rain may risk being struck by lightning—but when, who will be hit, will it cause injury or death? Hiking through forest underbrush may lead to snake or insect bites—but who will be bitten, is it poisonous or not, will it be fatal or just injurious? It's foreseeable, but the occurrence and outcome are uncertain—that is risk.
3.
Legal Liability: The civil, criminal, or administrative responsibilities that must be borne according to the law. Here, we mainly discuss civil and administrative liabilities, especially civil liability.
II.
Organizational Forms of Outdoor Adventure Sports: Different types of organizational forms entail different economic and legal relationships, thus resulting in varying risk legal responsibilities.
1.
Individual: also known as the so-called lone adventurer.
2.
Group of natural persons. This is further divided into non-profit groups and profit-making groups. Non-profit groups are what is commonly referred to as AA (All Expenses Paid Equally) self-help groups, i.e., voluntary activity groups formed by two or more natural persons following the rules of “public expenses shared equally, tasks completed independently, risks and responsibilities borne by oneself”; profit-making groups refer to those where an individual (one or more people) acts as the activity initiator or organizer, publicly charging participants additional fees beyond the common activity expenses in advance, or agreeing to collect fixed amounts without settlement, such as leader fees, organizing fees, equipment usage fees, or having participants share the leader’s public expenses, as well as combinations formed via fixed-fee payments that are non-refundable.
3.
Commercial Groups: These are groups formed by commercial legal entities or associations, such as outdoor gear shops, sporting goods retailers, outdoor sports clubs, or commercial outdoor websites, as initiators or organizers, who openly recruit participants for activities from unspecified individuals. Commercial groups include both fixed-fee and non-fixed-fee models, regardless of whether they ultimately make a profit or loss.
4.
Controversial Groups: The nature of this type of organizational form is somewhat controversial. Common examples include: ① Commercial outdoor websites initiating outdoor activities not in their own name, but in the name of authorized or appointed moderators as individuals, targeting unspecified individuals; ② Commercial outdoor clubs not using the club’s name, but instead posting activity notices on various websites and forums in the name of individuals with employed or affiliated relationships (i.e., online fishing), while the actual planning and execution is done by the club; ③ Outdoor activity groups whose group leaders initiate outdoor activities in their personal names for the “masses,” even if these activities have commodity advertising revenue (such as external ad agency placements or vacant ad spaces). Although the fees charged by such organizational activities are not necessarily profit-driven, and some may even be public-service oriented, legally, such forms of groups are generally presumed to have commercial objectives due to suspected business or profit motives, or actual or potential commercial benefits—such as gathering potential consumer interest, promoting a website or a brand of outdoor gear. This presumption stands unless the initiator can provide sufficiently credible evidence proving there is no form of interest relationship between themselves and the website, the club, or the advertisers. In reality, such self-proof is very difficult, including challenges in evidence collection, conflicts of interest with the certifier, and the singularity of the evidence, making it hard to convince the judge.QQGroup activities initiated in a personal capacity by the group leader for the “participants.” Although the fees charged for this type of organized activity are not necessarily for profit—some may even be for public benefit—in legal terms, such forms of gatherings are generally presumed to have commercial intent due to suspected business operations or profit-making, or because they involve actual or potential commercial benefits, such as gathering potential consumer interest, promoting a website, or advertising a particular brand of outdoor gear. This presumption holds unless the organizer can provide sufficiently credible evidence proving that there is no form of interest relationship between themselves and the website, the club, or the advertisers. In practice, however, such self-verification is extremely difficult, due to challenges in evidence collection, conflicts of interest with witnesses, the singularity of the evidence, etc., making it hard to convince a judge.
III.
Types of Risks in Outdoor Adventure Sports:
Classification by source of harm factors:
1.
Natural Force-Induced Risk: Includes hazards caused by meteorological disasters, geological disasters, and attacks by wild animals; these are the most common, frequent, and unpredictable sudden harms in outdoor adventure injuries. Examples include lightning strikes, avalanches, mountain floods, venomous snake bites, etc.
2.
Risk of harm caused by human error: This includes harm caused intentionally or negligently by the activity organizer or participants, affecting themselves or others. Examples include pranks causing someone to fall and get injured, jumping across streams too forcefully and knocking others down, or losing balance and falling and getting hurt oneself.
3.
Risk of harm caused by third parties: This refers to harm caused by individuals or events outside the activity organizer or participants. For example, harm resulting from transportation, accommodation, food, guides, or conflicts between humans and animals during the activity—such as injuries or fatalities in chartered vehicle accidents, illnesses from unhygienic food, or dog bites while passing through villages.
Classification by nature of harm:
1.
Inherent risk of harm (also known as primary risk): This refers to the potential, foreseeable, or inherent risks associated with the adventure activity itself, including those posed by natural forces and certain human factors. Different adventure activities carry different inherent risks. For instance, in high-altitude mountain climbing, heavy snow, strong winds, hail, avalanches, extreme cold, falls, altitude sickness, blindness, hypothermia, exhaustion, getting lost, navigation errors, and inaccurate weather forecasts are all considered inherent risks. In canyon whitewater rafting, risks include flash floods, capsizing, hitting rocks, drowning, getting lost, hypothermia, exhaustion, poor judgment or handling by fellow rafters, collisions between rafts, and failed rescue efforts—all of which are inherent risks.
2.
External risk of harm (also known as secondary risk): These are risks brought about by external factors beyond the inherent risks, introduced by others. For example, in rafting, the boat provider may supply a leaking raft; in mountain climbing, the support team may provide a leaking oxygen tank; or in stream trekking, the leader may use a frayed sling.
3.
Accidental risk of harm: These are sudden and entirely unforeseeable risks that do not fall under inherent or external risks. For example, during a rappelling activity, a snake suddenly darts out from a crevice, startling the climber who then loses grip of the rope and falls, resulting in injury.
IV.
Legal provisions and legislative outlook regarding liability for risks in outdoor adventure sports:
1.
It is truly regrettable that, to date, China has not enacted a single dedicated law or regulation that clearly defines the liability for harm caused by risks in outdoor adventure sports. Even within existing laws and regulations, there is not a single section or specific clause tailored specifically for the liability of risks in such activities. The Sports Law, as the specialized law governing sports, does not address this; neither does the General Principles of Civil Law, nor the State Council’s Regulations on National Fitness. Sadly, even the Supreme People’s Court’s judicial interpretation “Opinions on Several Issues Concerning the Trial of Personal Injury Compensation Cases” lacks supplementary provisions in this regard. It was once hoped that the Supreme People’s Court’s individual judicial response regarding the “7.9 Zhao Jiangshan Flood Personal Injury Compensation Case” in Guangxi would incorporate some of its fundamental legal reasoning into the Tort Liability Law, promulgated on December 26 of last year and implemented on July 1 of this year—but this did not happen. Outdoor adventure sports have now become an extremely popular and widely practiced form of mass sports, with cumulative annual participation certainly exceeding 100 million people, making it arguably China’s most popular mass fitness activity with distinct local characteristics. Moreover, in recent years, hundreds of outdoor risk incidents and disputes have occurred, yet there is no current law to clearly regulate and standardize them. This is undoubtedly a major legal deficiency—or loophole. In real life, acts such as participating in government subversion, joining criminal organizations, occasional prostitution, dog bites, or spreading vulgar jokes are far less common, yet the state has long established clear laws with strict enforcement. This shows that our legislative bodies, under the leadership of the Party, are not very concerned with mass outdoor sports activities—truly a glaring bias. Of course, this is meant as a joke, but we can only hope that the state will legislate for outdoor adventure sports as soon as possible.
2.
For the liability of risks in outdoor adventure sports, current judicial practice can only regulate and adjust based on some general or universally applicable legal principles. For example, in self-funded, DIY adventure activities, rulings generally rely on Article 4 of the General Principles of Civil Law, which outlines the principles of “voluntariness, fairness, and good faith”; Article 106, which covers general tort liability principles; Article 131, concerning “offsetting by fault”; and Article 132, regarding the “principle of equity.” For commercial, profit-driven outdoor adventure sports, liability for risk-related harm is typically handled by referring to relevant clauses in the Contract Law and Consumer Rights Protection Law, as well as Article 6 of the Supreme People’s Court’s “Opinions on Several Issues Concerning the Trial of Personal Injury Compensation Cases.” That is, commercial or profit-driven outdoor adventure sports are simply treated as general service contract relationships or ordinary tourism consumption relationships, with liability determined based on contract breaches or general torts. This leads to inconsistent legal relationship identifications and rulings for similar cases, or identical legal relationship identifications and rulings for different types of cases—clearly unfair and unjust. Why is it unfair and unjust? Because outdoor adventure sports are among the highest-risk sports activities, closely linked to natural and personal factors. Their risks are sudden and variable, difficult to avoid or prevent, and consequences vary greatly among individuals. They are characterized by unpredictable occurrences, unspecified victims, and uncertain outcomes. Additionally, participants in outdoor adventure sports usually have at least some prior awareness and judgment of the risks involved and the customary or agreed-upon risk responsibilities—whether through common sense, pre-activity training, or being informed—before voluntarily joining the activity in various forms. This constitutes what tort law theory calls “voluntary assumption of risk,” meaning that participants knowingly engage in activities with existing risks, willingly accept those risks, and agree to be bound by customary or agreed-upon risk responsibilities. “It is known that there are tigers in the mountains, yet one still heads toward the mountain—and if eaten by a tiger, one accepts it.” This is the essence of voluntary assumption of risk and self-responsibility for risk. It is a fundamental distinction between outdoor adventure sports and general sports or ordinary civil interactions, forming a widely acknowledged and voluntarily followed public order and good custom in the outdoor adventure industry (recognized as law abroad, or as public order and good custom domestically since there is no formal law). It is fundamentally different not only from playing billiards, running, or doing yoga, but also from traditional sightseeing tourism consumption services. Therefore, regardless of whether the format is self-funded DIY or commercial profit-driven, as long as participants are of full civil capacity, voluntarily join, and do not explicitly object to the customary or agreed-upon risk responsibilities—provided there is no intentional misconduct or gross negligence by the organizer—the law should fully respect this under the principles of voluntariness, fairness, good faith, and the free disposition of civil rights. We should not disregard the inherent risks of adventure sports, the customary risk responsibility norms, or prior agreements, and assume fault and shared civil liability for every incident involving casualties, thereby artificially creating “harmonious” rules for outdoor adventure. On the surface, such harmonious rules may seem to resolve the economic hardship and emotional distress of victims and ease conflicts of interest in individual cases—but they fail to fully consider the inherent risks and characteristics of outdoor adventure sports. Forcibly adjusting the customary risk responsibility norms and agreements undermines the judicial principle of basing decisions on facts, the civil law principle of good faith, and the public order and good custom of voluntary risk assumption in outdoor adventures. The consequences can only be two-fold: first, dissatisfaction among parties and public misunderstanding; second, widespread fear leading to the termination or distorted development of outdoor adventure sports and even competitive mass sports activities. Encouragingly, judging from the final verdict of the “7.9 Zhao Jiangshan Flood Personal Injury Compensation Case,” although it did not fully adopt the appellant’s argument of “voluntary assumption of risk and self-responsibility,” it did acknowledge that participants in inherently adventurous outdoor activities should recognize risks, make reasonable judgments, and bear responsibility for their own safety. For personal and property damage caused by natural forces, the activity organizers and fellow participants bear no fault and thus no liability for compensation—but they should provide limited equitable compensation. Similarly, the effective ruling in the Beijing “Beiling Mountain Snow Crossing Fatality Compensation Case” largely upheld the general doctrine of voluntary assumption of risk in outdoor adventure sports. It determined that the Green Field Outdoor website, the activity organizer, and other participants bore no fault for the accidental death of Xia Zi, dismissing all claims from the deceased’s family. These two major cases of fatal claims related to outdoor adventure sports—one in the south and one in the north—demonstrate that in self-funded, DIY outdoor adventure activities, as long as there is no intentional harm or gross negligence by the organizer or participants, the risk responsibility for...In current judicial practice, the liability for harm caused by risks in outdoor adventure sports can only be regulated by referring to some principled or general legal provisions. For example, in self-organized, cost-sharing (AA system) adventure activities, rulings generally rely on Article 4 of the General Principles of Civil Law, which outlines the principles of "voluntariness, fairness, and good faith"; Article 106 on general tort liability; Article 131 concerning "contributory negligence"; and Article 132 regarding the "principle of equity." For commercial, profit-driven outdoor adventure activities, liability for risk-induced harm is typically addressed by referencing relevant clauses in the Contract Law and the Consumer Rights Protection Law, as well as Article 6 of the Supreme People's Court's "Opinions on Several Issues Concerning the Trial of Personal Injury Compensation Cases." This approach simplistically treats commercial, profit-driven outdoor adventures as general service contract relationships or ordinary tourism consumption relationships, determining liability based on breach of contract or general tort. As a result, similar cases may receive different legal classifications and inconsistent rulings, while dissimilar cases might be assigned the same legal characterization and identical outcomes — a situation that is highly unfair and unjust. Why is this considered unfair and unjust? Because outdoor adventure sports are high-risk physical activities most closely associated with both natural elements and individual factors. They involve sudden and variable risks, are difficult to prevent or avoid, and their consequences vary from person to person. These activities are distinctly characterized by unpredictable hazards, unspecified victims, and uncertain outcomes. Moreover, participants in outdoor adventure sports usually have at least a basic awareness and understanding of the inherent risks, the conventions or agreements regarding liability for those risks, either through common sense, pre-trip training, or being informed in advance. They then voluntarily join the adventure in various forms of participation. This constitutes what tort law theory refers to as "assumption of risk" behavior — knowingly engaging in an activity where risks and potential harms exist, yet willingly taking on those risks and accepting the constraints of established risk liability conventions or agreements. "Knowing there are tigers in the mountains but still heading towards the mountain, and being willing to be eaten by a tiger if it happens" — this illustrates the essence of assumption of risk and self-responsibility for risk, which clearly distinguishes outdoor adventure sports from general physical activities and ordinary civil interactions. It forms a widely recognized and voluntarily adhered-to public order and good customs within the outdoor adventure community (recognized as law abroad, and referred to as public order and good customs domestically since it lacks formal legal status). This is fundamentally different not only from playing billiards, running, or doing yoga, but even more so from traditional sightseeing tourism consumption services. Therefore, regardless of whether the format is a cost-sharing (AA system) self-organized activity or a commercial profit-driven operation, as long as the participants are of full civil capacity, voluntarily take part, and do not explicitly object to the conventions or agreements on risk liability — and as long as there is no evidence of intentional wrongdoing or gross negligence by the organizers — then, based on the principles of voluntariness, fairness, good faith, and the freedom to dispose of one’s civil rights, the law should fully respect such arrangements. The law should not disregard the inherent risks of adventure sports, nor the established liability conventions and prior agreements. Simply because there is an outcome involving injury or death, it should not presume that both organizers and participants share fault, thereby allocating civil liability after the event and artificially creating a so-called "harmonious" rule for outdoor adventures. On the surface, such "harmonious" rules may seem to resolve the economic hardship and emotional distress of victims, and mitigate conflicts of interest in individual cases. However, these rules fail to adequately consider the fundamental legal fact of the inherent risks and characteristics of outdoor adventure sports. They forcibly adjust the long-established, customary risk liability conventions and agreements within the outdoor community, violating both the judicial principle of basing decisions on facts and the civil legal principle of good faith. Moreover, they undermine the public order and good customs of assumption of risk in outdoor adventures. The consequences of such an approach are twofold: first, parties involved may refuse to accept the outcomes, and the public may not understand them; second, everyone becomes fearful, leading to the termination or distorted development of outdoor adventure sports and even competitive mass sporting events. Encouragingly, from the final verdict in the "7.9 Zhao Jiangshan Flash Flood Personal Injury Compensation Case," although it did not fully adopt the appellant's argument of "assuming risk and self-responsibility for liability," it did acknowledge that participants in adventure-oriented outdoor activities should be aware of the risks and make reasonable judgments, bearing responsibility for their own safety. Regarding personal and property damage caused by natural forces, the activity organizers and fellow participants bear no fault and are not liable for compensation, but they may be responsible for a limited amount of equitable compensation. Similarly, the effective judgment in the Beijing "Beiling Mountain Snow Crossing Fatality Compensation Case" largely upheld the general doctrine of assumption of risk in outdoor adventure sports. It determined that the Green Field Outdoor website, the activity organizers, and other participants bore no fault for the accidental death of Xia Zi, dismissing all compensation claims from the deceased’s relatives. By examining these two major cases of fatal claims arising from outdoor adventures — one from the south and one from the north — it can be said that in cost-sharing (AA system) self-organized outdoor adventures, as long as there is no intentional harm or serious negligence by organizers or participants leading to injury or death, ...inherent risk-typeaccidents shall be borne by the victims themselves. “Voluntary assumption of risk and self-responsibility” has become a rule recognized and widely upheld in judicial practice.
3.
When outdoor adventure sports become one of the top activities in national fitness—and when risks and accidents become unavoidable and commonplace, with liability disputes hindering and constraining the healthy development of national fitness—it becomes necessary and realistic to legislate. Although China tends to “localize everything” in handling social issues—including legislation—when it comes to legislating for outdoor adventure sports, an activity introduced from Western countries, the basic principles and legal rationale cannot completely abandon existing foreign laws and fully localize everything. Setting aside ideology, first, human behavioral principles are universal; second, similar activities share homogenous traits; and third, general moral value judgments in human society are similar. Outdoor adventure, as an activity that emerged alongside Western global maritime trade and inland missionary movements, has a history of nearly 300 years. Its legal framework for risk responsibility has evolved from arbitrator-mediated judgments to court rulings, from judicial precedents to statutory laws, and from legal doctrines to codified statutes. The principles of voluntary assumption of risk, self-responsibility, and contractual liability have become dominant in the legal systems of Western countries concerning adventure activities and high-risk sports. Although China has not yet legislated in this area, the State General Administration of Sport’s approved“National Automobile Sports Management Regulations” Article 16 explicitly adoptssporting regulations issued by the Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile (FIA), requiring participants to enter into a contract with event organizers by filling out registration forms. Participants must also undertake that, in the event of death, injury, or property loss to themselves, other competitors, passengers, or crew members during the race or activity,,they will not hold the national sports administrative department, event organizing committee, sponsors, appointed officials, service personnel, representatives, agencies,,or any military or local institutions, employees, companies, or individuals involved in organizing or sponsoring the competition liable for claims. Moreover, within the race section or activity area,,this guarantee extends to any other participants, service personnel, and their agencies. Article 18 also stipulates: To properly handle accidents,,all event organizers and operators must secure adequate public liability insurance and accident/medical insurance for staff. Participants must arrange their own personal accident insurance or third-party liability insurance in advance. Vehicles used in competitions or activities must comply with FIA and China Automobile Federation safety technical standards,and must also have relevant insurance arranged in advance. The “Foreigners’ Mountaineering Management Measures” also clearly require foreign mountaineering teams to sign mountaineering agreements with designated domestic mountaineering support units—contractually defining the rights and obligations of both parties. Naturally, mountaineering risk responsibilities are also to be determined by these agreements. While automobile sports are not adventure sports, they are similarly high-risk activities. Foreigners climbing in China may not be the same as Chinese citizens doing so, but both are exploratory outdoor adventure activities. This shows that the principles of “participants bearing their own risk responsibilities,” “not holding counterparties or third parties liable for risk responsibilities,” “risk responsibilities being borne by oneself or one’s insurance institution,” and “risk responsibilities being determined by contracts”—have been recognized by the State General Administration of Sport and incorporated into regulations or industry standards. This is a very welcome small step forward! Optimistically speaking: If one day the state revises the Sports Law or enacts laws such as the “High-Risk Sports and Adventure Sports Personal Injury Liability Regulations,” three fundamental legal principles are likely to be adopted: first, self-responsibility for risk; second, contractualization of risk responsibilities; and third, the transition of risk responsibilities to insurance liabilities.
V.
Reasonable Avoidance of Liability for Harm Caused by Outdoor Adventure Sports Risks:
Outdoor adventure sports carry high risks and the occurrence of unexpected incidents is unavoidable. Before the state formulates clear and detailed laws and regulations to govern such activities, disputes and even litigation arising from liability for harm caused by risks will continue to occur. How to engage in outdoor adventure sports while reasonably avoiding undue risk responsibilities and safeguarding one’s legitimate rights and interests is an unavoidable issue facing everyone. Here are several suggestions for collective discussion and practical trial:
I. General Suggestions for Organizers of AA-Style Self-Guided Adventure Activities:
1.
Only post on websites where you regularly initiate activity announcements, and clearly indicate that it is not a recruitment post — that is, not an invitation to an unspecified group of people.
2.
It is best to only invite fellow hikers you often travel with, and firmly decline participation by minors, especially those under the age of sixteen. Minors are persons with limited civil capacity (those under ten are persons with no civil capacity). Agreeing to or accepting their participation creates a de facto temporary guardianship relationship. Should an accident occur, I need not elaborate on the legal consequences. Here, a special warning is given to those who are very enthusiastic about organizing large-group activities such as “all ages joining together to summit triumphantly, with elders and children alike rejoicing at the mountaintop vista.” Due to your enthusiasm and good intentions, you may unknowingly bring upon yourself and your companions risks beyond the inherent dangers of the sport: the legal liability of a temporary guardian. Bringing minor children into adventure environments is also morally inappropriate.
3.
Briefly outline the basic details of the activity, the proposed route, and the itinerary, and note that the final execution plan will be jointly decided by all participants.
4.
Specifically highlight the nature of the activity (AA-style self-guided adventure) and the basic risks involved (including but not limited to...), and suggest that interested participants gather relevant information on their own (weather, geography, geology, hydrology, maps, routes, culture, etc.). Remind participants to bring necessary outdoor gear, tools, auxiliary equipment, and to have the right to self-assess whether to withdraw from the activity midway.
5.
Temporarily elect or unanimously appoint a trip leader with representative duties.
6.
Specifically warn about the method of liability assumption in the event of risk-related accidents during the activity, and recommend that participants purchase necessarypersonal accident insurance.
II. Suggestions for Profit-Oriented Individual Organizers of Outdoor Adventure Activities:
1.
Clearly state the basic conditions and requirements for participants, and firmly refusethe participation of minors; when profit-oriented entities assume guardianship obligations, the scope and extent of liability for risk responsibility will increase.
2.
Publicly disclose a detailed and well-formulated activity plan (intensity, difficulty, route, schedule), and explicitly require participants to carefully assess whether their health condition and outdoor skills are suitable for the activity.
3.
Provide a detailed list of the main risks associated with the activity.
4.
Disclose the method and breakdown of activity fee collection, especially clearly stating the amount of any fees beyond shared costs, such as leader fees, organizational fees, etc.; allow participants to opt out midway and commit to refunding any fees other than shared costs.
5.
Specifically highlight the reasonably appropriate scope of safety assurance obligations assumed in relation to additional fees collected, as well as liability for compensation or indemnity in the event of harm within the scope of safety assurance obligations.
6.
Clearly state the matters for which safety assurance obligations are not assumed (such as harm caused by natural forces, third-party actions, unauthorized actions against the leader’s instructions, or self-inflicted harm due to personal factors, etc.).
7.
Participants are required to purchasepersonal accident insurance on their own, and insurance purchasing services will be provided;
8.
A pre-trip meeting will be held to reiterate the risks of the activity and related safety precautions.
III. Recommendations for Organizers of Outdoor Adventure Activities Convened by Commercial Entities:
These are largely the same as those for profit-seeking individuals organizing outdoor adventure activities, but with the following three specific requirements:
1.
They must possess the legal qualifications to operate outdoor adventure activities (Article 32 of the "Regulations on National Fitness" states:For operating high-risk sports projects, the conditions stipulated by relevant regulations must be met, and an application must be submitted to and approved by the sports administrative department of the local people’s government at or above the county level ); 2.
For all high-cost, high-risk, and highly specialized outdoor adventure activities, a written "Outdoor Adventure Activity Agreement" should be signed with participants, clearly outlining the technical training and professional support to be provided by the organizer, defining the scope of safety obligations corresponding to the fees charged within a reasonable limit, as well as the limited liability amount in case of accidental injuries falling within the scope of safety obligations; it should also specify the scope of exempted liabilities (Although Article 54 of the "Contract Law" explicitly states that exemption clauses for personal injury in contracts are invalid, it does not prohibit the signing of limited liability clauses within reasonable limits).
3.It should be agreed that participants are not allowed to opt out of purchasing the
specific type and coverage of personal accident insurance designated by the organizer, and it should be stipulated that insurance payouts will serve as the first tier of compensation or indemnity, with claims against the organizer’s limited liability mechanism being initiated only for any shortfall, and within such limits.
In summary: Commercial organizers provide a business-oriented professional service and bear the highest level of risk responsibility among similar adventure sports. They should enhance the technical expertise of team leaders or support staff through their own efforts, provide better and more professional adventure gear and auxiliary equipment, and reduce both inherent and external risks associated with the sport. For higher-risk and more dangerous activities, greater emphasis should be placed on transferring risks through insurance. When signing insurance contracts with insurers, it is essential to: first, clarify the specific content of the adventure activity; second, detail the types and scope of risks; third, ensure that no exemption from liability is permitted for risks within the specified types and scope; and fourth, strive to secure a certain level of compensation from the insurer even for accidents involving risks not listed. Where there's a will, there's a way — strive to include all possible risks within the scope of insurable relief.IV. Recommendations for Organizers of Outdoor Adventure Activities Convened through Controversial Composite Structures:
No recommendation carries more weight than this one: keep all evidence provided by the outdoor websites, clubs, advertisers, or others you serve — such as letters of appointment, power of attorney, pay slips, performance settlement statements, service contracts, or collaboration certificates. Should a risk incident occur and you find yourself unable to shoulder the responsibility alone, these seemingly trivial items could help share part or even all of the liability. This advice may seem less than noble or somewhat opportunistic, but it is practical and highly effective. Of course, whether to use it is up to you.
My creative well has run dry, so I’m forcing out words. Rambling on, I’ll stop when things go awry. Apologies for taking up the precious time of all the esteemed talents here — thank you all for your patience and thanks very much indeed.This post has been synchronized to Beijing Zhu Pi’s Weibo.Outdoor AdventureSuggestions from the Event Organizer:
A thousand pieces of advice can’t top this one: keep all the appointment letters, authorization documents, pay stubs, performance settlement statements, service contracts, or cooperation certificates provided by the outdoor websites, clubs, or advertisers you work for. When risks or accidents occur and you can’t shoulder the responsibility alone, these seemingly trivial items might help share part or even all of the liability. This advice may seem less than noble or a bit opportunistic, but it’s practical and very effective—of course, whether to use it is up to you.
My creative well has run dry, and I’m forcing out words. Rambling on and knowing when to stop. Apologies for taking up the valuable time of all the talented people here—thank you all for your understanding and thanks again to everyone.
This post has been synced to Beijing Zhu Pi’s Weibo.