In recent years, "outdoor expansion" has gradually become a popular leisure activity among the public. While such training can indeed improve physical fitness and help relax the mind, it also carries certain risks, and carelessness can easily lead to self-inflicted injuries. Recently, the Baini Tribunal of Sanshui Court heard a case related to outdoor expansion, and the court ultimately ruled that the defendant, an ecological orchard, should compensate for 20% of the medical expenses, while the plaintiff, Mr. Wang, bore 80% of the responsibility himself.
In February 2011, the plaintiff, Mr. Wang, participated in an event organized by Company A to undergo "expansion training" at an ecological orchard. Later, while rock climbing, Mr. Wang accidentally fell from a height and was injured. After the accident, he was sent to the hospital for treatment, incurring medical expenses totaling 52,138.4 yuan. After his injuries slightly improved, Mr. Wang entrusted a lawyer to sue Company A and the ecological orchard for compensation of medical costs.
The plaintiff argued that the defendant, Company A, as the organizer of the event, did not explicitly inform him that he could not participate in the "rock climbing activity" and should therefore bear liability for the damages he suffered; the defendant, the ecological orchard, as the operator of the expansion base, failed to fulfill its safety obligations and did not implement any protective measures to prohibit participants from climbing on their own, and thus should also bear corresponding compensation liability.
During the trial, both the plaintiff and the defendant engaged in intense debate over two key issues: whether Company A was the organizer of the expansion activity and whether it should bear liability, and whether the defendant, the ecological orchard, had fulfilled its safety obligations. Ultimately, the court determined that Company A was not the organizer of the expansion activity and therefore bore no responsibility. At the same time, although the defendant, the ecological orchard, had posted warning signs reading "Climbing prohibited, consequences at your own risk" around the rock wall where the accident occurred, there were no protective barriers around the rock wall, and the climbing area was easily accessible to visitors entering the ecological orchard. Moreover, the rock wall was about 10 meters high, with numerous climbable stones on its surface and a concrete ground below, indicating that the climbing activity carried certain risks. The defendant, the ecological orchard, failed to properly enclose the area or provide clear usage instructions for the climbing wall, which indeed constituted a failure to fulfill its safety obligations. However, since the accident was primarily caused by the plaintiff’s own actions, and he bore significant fault in the incident, he was deemed responsible for 80% of the liability.
In February 2011, the plaintiff, Mr. Wang, participated in an event organized by Company A to undergo "expansion training" at an ecological orchard. Later, while rock climbing, Mr. Wang accidentally fell from a height and was injured. After the accident, he was sent to the hospital for treatment, incurring medical expenses totaling 52,138.4 yuan. After his injuries slightly improved, Mr. Wang entrusted a lawyer to sue Company A and the ecological orchard for compensation of medical costs.
The plaintiff argued that the defendant, Company A, as the organizer of the event, did not explicitly inform him that he could not participate in the "rock climbing activity" and should therefore bear liability for the damages he suffered; the defendant, the ecological orchard, as the operator of the expansion base, failed to fulfill its safety obligations and did not implement any protective measures to prohibit participants from climbing on their own, and thus should also bear corresponding compensation liability.
During the trial, both the plaintiff and the defendant engaged in intense debate over two key issues: whether Company A was the organizer of the expansion activity and whether it should bear liability, and whether the defendant, the ecological orchard, had fulfilled its safety obligations. Ultimately, the court determined that Company A was not the organizer of the expansion activity and therefore bore no responsibility. At the same time, although the defendant, the ecological orchard, had posted warning signs reading "Climbing prohibited, consequences at your own risk" around the rock wall where the accident occurred, there were no protective barriers around the rock wall, and the climbing area was easily accessible to visitors entering the ecological orchard. Moreover, the rock wall was about 10 meters high, with numerous climbable stones on its surface and a concrete ground below, indicating that the climbing activity carried certain risks. The defendant, the ecological orchard, failed to properly enclose the area or provide clear usage instructions for the climbing wall, which indeed constituted a failure to fulfill its safety obligations. However, since the accident was primarily caused by the plaintiff’s own actions, and he bore significant fault in the incident, he was deemed responsible for 80% of the liability.
