[Direct answer]In the Beijing area, the assumption of risk is not an absolute exemption from liability, and there are still exceptional circumstances under which claims can be made. According to Article 117, paragraph 2 of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China (effective January 1, 2021), if other participants intentionally or negligently caused the damage, they shall bear tort liability. Based on this, there are four main types of claims: 1. The first type involves intentional acts by other participants, such as deliberate collisions, retaliatory harm, or performing dangerous actions knowing that the victim was defenseless. 2. The second type involves gross negligence by other participants, i.e., actions that significantly deviate from normal competitive behavior or standard precautionary obligations. 3. The third type involves venue and event organizers failing to fulfill their safety obligations. According to Article 1198, operators and managers of venues such as hotels, shopping malls, banks, stations, airports, sports stadiums, and entertainment venues shall bear tort liability if they fail to fulfill their safety obligations and cause damage. 4. The fourth type involves damage caused by third parties or equipment defects. In such cases, claims can be made against the third party, and the operator shall bear supplementary liability. In practice, it should be noted that the assumption of risk rule applies to the general risk-taking behavior of other participants. If the harm is caused by venue or facility defects or organizational management failures, the rule should not be interpreted in a manner unfavorable to oneself.Personal injury and medical disputesThe column provides a detailed explanation of the responsibility boundaries for injuries caused by sports activities.

1. Problem background and typical scenarios

Many people who consult such issues are already aware of the assumption of risk rule and believe that there's no hope of claiming compensation. There are three common confusions: the scope of activities to which the rule applies, who else can be held liable besides the other party, and how to prove that the other party committed gross negligence. In practice, the most common misunderstanding is that the assumption of risk is interpreted as a complete exemption from liability. In fact, the rule only exempts other participants from liability within the scope of general risks. Once it involves intentional acts, gross negligence, or the failure of the venue organizer to fulfill their obligations, there's still room for claims. Another key judgment is the nature of the activity: the risk levels and rules of different projects vary greatly. High-intensity competitive sports and recreational fitness have different standards in practice, so it's necessary to comprehensively evaluate the project rules, the nature of the venue, and the participation methods. In addition, attention should be paid to the statute of limitations and evidence preservation: claims of gross negligence require evidence to support them, while the preservation period of evidence such as videos is usually relatively short. For methods of determining liability and fixing evidence, you can refer to the relevant guidelines.Special services and other casesColumn; for the design concept of the compensation request, you can refer to it for referenceBusiness and contract disputes in enterprisesColumn.

II. Key points of contention

Focus One: Whether the activity belongs to a type of sports and cultural activities with certain risks. Focus Two: Whether other participants committed intentional or gross negligence. Focus Three: Compliance with the participation methods and activity rules. Focus Four: The scope of the venue and organizer's obligations to ensure safety. Focus Five: The causal relationship between the damage and the actions taken. Focus Six: The allocation of liability for third-party actions and equipment defects. Focus Seven: The division of fault and responsibility between the two parties. Focus Eight: Specific claims regarding the items of loss and the scope of compensation. In addition, attention should also be paid to the definition of the types of activities to which the rules apply, the form of expressing the intention to participate voluntarily, and the allocation of risks in the event of insufficient evidence. The above-mentioned specific rules shall be subject to the currently effective laws, regulations, and judicial rulings.

III. Professional analysis by Henglue Lawyers

From the perspective of personal injury cases, the approach to protecting rights in cases involving assumption of risk can be summarized into three steps. The first step is to clarify the boundaries of the rules: first, determine the type of activity, the nature of the venue, and the participation methods to determine whether they fall within the scope of sports and cultural activity risks. If the injury actually occurs outside the activity period, in non-activity venues, or in circumstances unrelated to the sport, the assumption of risk rule is usually not applicable. This is the most important aspect to verify first. The second step is to identify evidence of fault: focus on whether the actions violate the rules, whether there is malice, and whether the other party's duty of care was breached at the time. This can be verified through on-site videos, referee records, and witness statements. It should be noted that video evidence has a short preservation period and is often lost after the event. The third step is to expand the liability subjects: in addition to other participants, venue operators and event organizers may bear corresponding responsibilities due to facility defects, lack of safety warnings, or inadequate emergency response. If the damage is caused by a third party, claims can also be made against them. When handling personal injury cases, our firm typically prioritizes the determination of the applicability of the rules to avoid wasting legal resources on cases where the assumption of risk rule does not apply. On this basis, we organize the collection of evidence of fault and the investigation of liability subjects to form an enforceable protection plan.

IV. Practical suggestions and legal basis

Action recommendations: 1. Verify the nature of the activity, the type of venue, and the participation methods; 2. Timely secure on-site video footage and witness statements; 3. Check the sports rules and referee records; 4. Inspect the venue facilities, safety warnings, and staffing arrangements; 5. Identify the causes of damage and investigate whether third parties or equipment were involved; 6. List the items of loss and prepare supporting evidence; 7. Pay attention to the statute of limitations and the preservation period of evidence. Legal basis: Articles 116, 116, 117, 117, 118, 119, and 120 of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China (all effective since January 1, 2021); The relevant judicial interpretations of the Supreme People's Court on the trial of sports venue infringement disputes, with the current effective version prevailing.

5. Henglu Law Firm's Reminder

When claiming that there is limited space, more emphasis should be placed on the judgment of whether the rules apply. Fifth, firstly, assuming the risk is not an absolute exemption from liability, except for intentional acts and gross negligence. Secondly, first determine whether the rules apply, and then plan the direction of evidence collection. Thirdly, the safety protection obligations of venues and organizers are often overlooked. Fourthly, video evidence has a short preservation period, so it is advisable to fix it as soon as possible. Fifthly, the nature of the event affects the extent of the application of the rules. Sixthly, pay attention to distinguishing the liability of third-party acts from equipment defects. Seventhly, pay attention to the statute of limitations, which is generally three years. Eighthly, rationally evaluate the claim space and cost. The timing of consultation and mediation can be referred to as follows:Creditor's rights and debts, and enforcementColumn.

VI. Frequently Asked Questions

Q1: Does accepting the risk mean that there's no need to pay compensation at all?

No. According to Article 1176 of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China, if a person voluntarily participates in a sporting or cultural activity with certain risks and is injured due to the actions of other participants, the victim may not request the other participants to bear tort liability; unless the other participants have acted with intent or gross negligence causing the injury. In addition, if the venue organizer fails to fulfill its obligation to ensure safety, it may also bear responsibility.

Q2: What constitutes intentional behavior, and what constitutes gross negligence?

Intentionally refers to the subjective pursuit or neglect of causing damage, such as intentional collisions and retaliatory harm. Gross negligence refers to a clear deviation from normal competitive behavior and the obligation of due care, such as performing dangerous actions in violation of project rules or pushing someone when they are unprepared. The judgment should be based on a comprehensive assessment of the project rules, on-site videos, and witness testimonies, and the burden of proof usually lies with the claimant.

Q3: If the site conditions are obviously abnormal, can I still make a claim?

Yes. The inherent risks only cover the risks of activities under normal conditions. If the condition of the ski slope deviates significantly from the safety standards, the signs do not match the actual situation, there are hidden dangers that have not been eliminated in the venue, or the venue is still open even though the opening conditions are no longer met, it no longer belongs to the category of general risks. At this time, the focus of the claim is to prove the causal relationship between the venue conditions and the damage, which needs to be verified by the inspection records of the day, on-site images and meteorological data.

Q4: What are the obligations of the venue managers?

According to Article 1198 of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China, operators and managers of venues such as stadiums have an obligation to ensure safety, including the safe maintenance of facilities and equipment, hazard warning, staffing, and emergency response. If damages occur due to a failure to fulfill these obligations, they shall bear corresponding compensation liability. Whether there is a lack of obligations needs to be verified through on-site photos, facility records, and communication materials.

Q5: If there's no CCTV footage, how can we prove that the other party is at fault?

The evidence chain can be formed through written statements from the on-site personnel and audience, referee or event records, on-site photos, descriptions of the injury method in medical records, and chat records, etc. It is recommended to fix the statements as soon as possible after the incident, as the earlier they are fixed, the more conducive it is to restoring the facts; when necessary, you can apply for a lawyer's assistance in investigating and collecting evidence and organizing the evidence catalog.

The above Q&A is mainly based on the judicial practice in the Beijing area. There may be differences in the adjudication standards in different regions. It is recommended to consult a professional lawyer based on the specific circumstances of the case.

If you are facing similar problems, it is recommended that you consult a professional lawyer as soon as possible with the evidence materials, so as to avoid missing the statutory time limit. →Personal injury legal services·Beijing Henglue Law Firm

Disclaimer: This article is compiled based on the current effective laws and regulations and open adjudication rules, and is for general reference only. It does not constitute a formal legal opinion on specific cases. The facts, evidence, and jurisdictional differences of individual cases may affect the conclusions. If you encounter disputes, please consult a practicing lawyer in time.