A man in his sixties, Mr. Li, passed away suddenly due to an acute illness while on a group hiking tour. Who is responsible for the tragedy? The family and the travel agency disagreed. Recently, rulings from two levels of courts indicated that when elderly people travel, they must fully understand their own physical condition and inform the travel agency. They should avoid participating in certain unsuitable activities and not force themselves, otherwise it would be difficult to hold the travel agency accountable.
Elderly Man Collapses and Dies During Hiking Tour
Mrs. Zhou and her husband, Mr. Li, were members of the Phoenix Travel Agency club. On September 27, 2010, they signed a travel contract with Phoenix Travel Agency to join a tour group to Tianzi Mountain in Qingyuan at a price of 59 yuan per day.
On September 29, 2010, at 7:15 a.m., the group set off from Guangzhou to Tianzi Mountain in Qingyuan and arrived at the foot of the viewing platform on Huancheng Road, Taihe Town, Qingxin County around 9 a.m. The Phoenix Travel Agency organized the group to start hiking up the mountain to visit the scenic viewing platform. Around 10 a.m., Mr. Li fell and hit his head while at the viewing platform during the tour, and later died despite rescue efforts at Qingxin County People’s Hospital.
Family Sues Travel Agency for 250,000 Yuan in Compensation
Aunt Zhou and her daughter believed that the tour leader and guide of Phoenix Travel Agency were aware that Mr. Li had difficulty walking and that hiking was a high-risk activity that endangered the safety of tourists, yet they failed to take necessary measures to prevent harm, leading to Mr. Li’s fall and death. They argued that Phoenix Travel Agency bore inescapable liability for compensation. As a result, they sued the travel agency, seeking over 250,000 yuan in compensation.
In the first trial, Phoenix Travel Agency argued that they had fulfilled their duty of providing reasonable safety measures and should not be held liable for Mr. Li’s accidental death. On September 29, 2010, when Phoenix Travel Agency organized the group tour to Qingyuan for sightseeing, the guide repeatedly reminded older and mobility-impaired tourists not to hike up the mountain but to stay and view the scenery from the platform at the mountain’s base. However, Mr. Li ignored the guide’s and other tourists’ advice, insisted on going up the mountain, and collapsed after sitting at the viewing platform for about five minutes. Deceased Suffered from Hypertension
Phoenix Travel Agency stated that as an adult, Mr. Li should have been more aware of his mental and physical condition. Knowing that he had hypertension and mobility issues, he should have exercised caution regarding strenuous activities like hiking. The contract also stipulated that if damage to the traveler’s person or property was caused by reasons not attributable to the travel agency, such as third-party infringement, the agency would not be liable for compensation. Mr. Li’s accident occurred within just five minutes, and considering he was a 67-year-old with hypertension, it could be inferred that his death was due to personal accident or some underlying illness. According to the terms of the travel contract, the travel agency is not liable for damages caused by reasons not attributable to them.
First Trial Verdict
Family Loses Lawsuit as Mr. Li Did Not Disclose His Health Condition
The first-instance court found that Mr. Li’s daughter had told public security authorities after the incident that her father had a slight limp in his left leg, was generally in good health, had mild hypertension, but it was not severe. The tour leader for this trip stated that seeing Mr. Li’s mobility issues, he, along with the Phoenix Travel Agency guide, the local guide, and other group members, advised him not to go up to the viewing platform, but Mr. Li ignored the advice and went with the group. He then sat in the highest pavilion of the viewing platform to enjoy the scenery. About 20 minutes later, Mr. Li collapsed.
The first-instance court held that: Mr. Li’s daughter’s statement to the police confirmed that he suffered from hypertension, thus Mr. Li had not fulfilled his obligation to inform Phoenix Travel Agency of his condition. Furthermore, all witness testimonies mutually corroborated that Mr. Li ignored the advice of guides and fellow tourists and proceeded to hike despite his physical condition, which led to his collapse and sudden death. Therefore, the cause of the accident was attributed to Mr. Li himself, and Phoenix Travel Agency was not at fault. The court ruled in favor of Mrs. Zhou’s side losing the lawsuit.
Second Trial Verdict
Sudden Death Was Unforeseeable and Unpreventable; Original Verdict Upheld
After the first verdict, Aunt Zhou and her daughter appealed, dissatisfied with the decision, and sought over 240,000 yuan in compensation. They argued that the Bai Bu Ti Viewing Platform at Tianzi Mountain in Qingyuan was a high-altitude scenic spot on the mountain, beyond the suitable range of travel activities for middle-aged and elderly people, and that Phoenix Travel Agency should not have arranged such an activity for a tour group mainly composed of older adults.
The Guangzhou Intermediate People’s Court, after reviewing the case, concluded that if Mr. Li had died from injuries sustained in a fall, the location of the fall—the pavilion meant for tourists to rest and view scenery—was generally not considered a place with potential hazards likely to cause injury. Therefore, Mr. Li’s fall at this location was an incidental and unforeseeable accident. If, however, Mr. Li had died from sudden cardiac arrest due to an underlying illness, the root cause of the sudden death was an internal, hidden disease that Mr. Li himself might not have even been aware of. Hence, his sudden death was an unforeseeable and unpreventable accident for both him and Phoenix Travel Agency. Additionally, there was no evidence that the Tianzi Mountain viewing platform tour project arranged by Phoenix Travel Agency posed any obvious danger or impropriety. Moreover, ascending to the viewing platform was not a mandatory part of the tour route, and tourists could choose whether or not to climb to the top. Based on these factors, the Guangzhou Intermediate People’s Court dismissed the appeal in the second trial and upheld the original verdict.