Injured during a youth training match, can the organizer refuse compensation as a "non-profit" (explanation based on the case)
Wan is an underage kart driver. At the invitation of Zhang, the team leader of a certain sports team, Wan signed up to participate in a minor training competition held at a go-kart track operated by a sports company. His father paid a participation fee of 460 yuan at Zhang's request, and Zhang paid it to a sports company on his behalf.
On the day of the training session, Wan went straight into the starting area without purchasing insurance. After arriving at the scene, due to the poor compatibility of the size of the existing vehicle with its body shape, it was impossible to sit properly while wearing rib protectors. When Zhang and others urged him to start, Wan took off his rib protectors to compete. During the training session, when Wang, who was also participating in the race, was driving a go-kart around a corner, the vehicle skidded and stopped sideways on the track. Wan was unable to avoid it, and the car and the driver rolled over.
After being sent to the hospital for diagnosis, Wan suffered multiple injuries to his body. After the accident, Zhang argued that he was only collecting fees on behalf of the organizer, not for profit, and should not bear responsibility. A sports company argued that the accident was not due to a problem with the competition vehicle or venue, and it did not assume responsibility. Wan and his guardian filed a lawsuit with the People's Court of Tongzhou District, Beijing, requiring Zhang, a sports company, and Wang and his guardian to jointly and severally compensate nearly 500,000 yuan for various losses.
After trial, the court held that the focus of the dispute in this case was whether each party should bear responsibility for Wan's injury, and how to determine the proportion of each party's responsibility.
Go-karting is a high-risk competitive activity. It is a common technical condition to skid when cornering due to excessive speed. After Wang stopped sideways, he raised his hands to indicate that he complied with the operating regulations. There is no evidence to prove that he was intentional or grossly negligent in causing the damage. Based on the principle of self-restraint in the Civil Code, Wang and his guardian do not need to bear compensation liability.
A sports company knew that go-kart racing was a high-risk competitive activity, but it failed to remind participants to buy insurance and did not conduct safety inspections of driver equipment before starting. It failed to fulfill its safety guarantee obligations and should be held liable for compensation.
Although Zhang, the team leader, maintains that a certain team is a non-profit organization formed voluntarily by amateurs, he is actually responsible for event invitations, personnel scheduling, fee collection, and venue docking, and he is a "mass event organizer." Before Wan started the train, he failed to properly arrange safety inspections and urged Wan to start the race without wearing rib protection. He was at fault and should bear corresponding liability for compensation.
Wan and his guardian participated in karting activities many times and should be fully aware of the dangers of the sport. However, the guardian failed to stop Wan when he was not wearing rib protectors. This was a breach of duty on the part of the guardian. Therefore, the liability of a sports company and Zhang can be reduced to a certain extent.
The Tongzhou District Court held that after comprehensive consideration of factors such as the degree of fault of the parties, a sports company failed to fulfill its safety guarantee obligations and was mainly at fault for the accident, and it should bear 50% of the liability for compensation; Zhang organized non-profit mass activities, and his safety guarantee obligations should be limited to a reasonable range, and he should bear 20% of the liability for compensation; Wan and his guardian should bear 30% of the liability themselves.
The judge said that the key legal issue in this case is the definition of the safety protection obligations of organizers of "non-profit" mass activities. The Civil Code's provisions on safety guarantee obligations do not limit organizers to "for-profit" entities. When determining whether a civil subject constitutes a "mass activity organizer," the court usually adopts the "actual control" standard, that is, the safety guarantee obligations originate from the organizer's actual control over the activity.
The judge reminded that "non-profit" is by no means a "gold medal" for immunity. Minors' participation in high-risk cultural and sports activities requires all parties to jointly maintain the bottom line of safety. Maintaining every protective level is the best protection for participants.
(People's Daily reporter Qi Yukun)
