[Direct answer]In principle, yes. Voluntary participation in competitive sports is considered as accepting the inherent risks of the sport. If other participants do not have intentional or major negligence, the victim cannot claim compensation - the self-risk rule in Article 1176 of the Civil Code. The 3V3 badminton case in Chaoyang Court of Beijing is a benchmark case: the victim's eyes were injured and his vision dropped to 0.05, but all his claims were still rejected. There are three exceptions: the other party's intentional or major negligence, the organizer's failure to fulfill the obligation of safety protection, and the defects of the venue facilities.

1. Problem background and typical scenarios

Amateur leagues, corporate sports events, and weekend football games—the first reaction after getting injured during these activities is usually to seek compensation. Since the "assumption of risk" rule was incorporated into the law, the courts' attitude towards injuries sustained during sports events has become much clearer: whether the injury is severe or not has no necessary connection with whether compensation will be granted. The key issue is whether the injury was caused by the inherent risks of the sport itself.

II. Key points of contention

First, the applicable conditions of assuming risks voluntarily and the scope of inherent risks. Second, the adjudication logic of typical cases: why the claim for serious injuries was still rejected. Third, three exceptional channels: malice, organizers, and facilities. Fourth, the practical value of event insurance and risk disclosure.

III. Professional analysis by Henglue Lawyers

First, understand the rules of the case: In the Song v. Zhou case heard by the Chaoyang District Court of Beijing, the two parties participated in a 3V3 badminton competition. During the match, Song suffered an injury to his right eye, resulting in the dislocation of his artificial lens and a vision drop to 0.05—a serious injury. The court held that badminton is a competitive sport with certain risks, and participants' voluntary participation is deemed acceptance of these risks. The available evidence did not prove that Zhou acted with intent or gross negligence. Based on Article 1176 of the Civil Code regarding the assumption of risks, the court dismissed all of Song's claims, and the Second Intermediate People's Court of Beijing upheld the original verdict. This case teaches everyone that the assumption of risks does not depend on the severity of the injury but on the nature of the activity—even serious injuries caused by normal competition within the inherent risks of the sport, as long as there is no malice on the part of the opponent, do not trigger compensation. Break down the legal elements: 1. "Sports activities with certain risks" — including competitive ball sports, martial arts, skiing, and mountaineering events. 2. "Voluntary participation" — registration, signing agreements, and participating in competitions must be voluntary. 3. Damage caused by "other participants' actions" — reasonable competitive actions from teammates or opponents. 4. The other party's "lack of intent or gross negligence" — this is the sole avenue for victims to seek compensation, with the burden of proof resting on the victim. Exceptions include: - Intentional or gross negligence by the other party — malicious fouls, retaliatory actions, or clearly unethical behavior. Video evidence and witnesses are crucial. - Organizer's failure to fulfill safety obligations — lack of medical care at events, insufficient rule explanations, or improper scheduling. - Defective venue facilities — slippery courts or substandard equipment. Two practical approaches: 1. Effectiveness of risk disclosure documents — pre-competition signed agreements cannot exempt malicious foulers from liability, but they help prove the organizer fulfilled their disclosure obligations and enhance participants' risk awareness. 2. Insurance is the optimal solution — event organizers purchase liability insurance, and participants purchase accident insurance, transforming "assuming risks" into "sharing risks through insurance," the most practical mitigation arrangement under the rules. Beijing courts' adjudication approach to sports injury cases aligns with the Chaoyang case. Before initiating claims, participants should first use the two yardsticks of "inherent risks plus malicious evidence" to self-assess and avoid futile litigation.

IV. Practical suggestions and legal basis

The first step is to assess the risk: whether the injury belongs to the inherent risks of sports. First, conduct a self-assessment and then determine the strategy; The second step is to identify malice: video footage, witnesses, and referee records can prove intentional or gross negligence; The third step is to examine the organization: review the organizers' obligations in three aspects: first aid, notification, and facilities; The fourth step is to arrange insurance: purchase liability insurance and accident insurance before the competition to transfer the losses in advance. Main legal basis: Articles 1176 and 1198 of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China; specific applications shall be subject to the currently effective regulations.

5. Henglue Law Firm's Reminder

There are three phrases related to assuming risks: participating in the competition means taking risks, and serious injuries may not be compensated; the key to exemption of liability lies in malicious evidence, not the severity of the injury; the responsibilities of organizers and venues should be reviewed independently, and insurance is the most practical way to mitigate losses. For claims involving event injuries, you can proceed through the following channels:Personal injury and medical disputesWe provide a comprehensive solution for services, which includes the integration of venue facilities and security measures.Property transactions and construction projectsThe quality and experience of the facilities in the plate can be referred to when dealing with insurance claims and disputesSpecialised legal servicesFor plates related to the enforcement of compensation, you can refer to the following information for reference.Creditor's rights and debts, and enforcement casesPlate consultation.

VI. Frequently Asked Questions

Q1: What activities are subject to the assumption of risk by the participants themselves?

Sports activities with certain risks, such as competitive ball games, martial arts, and ski mountaineering, require voluntary participation and are subject to rules.

Q2: Can I claim compensation if the other party commits a malicious foul and injures me?

Yes. The exemption from liability for assuming the risk does not apply to intentional or gross negligence. The key points are the on-site video and the witness's testimony about the nature of the actions.

Q3: If a player gets injured during the competition, do the organizers have to compensate them?

The organizers failed to fulfill their obligations to ensure safety (lack of rescue, insufficient information, and improper race schedule), and they should be held accountable for their faults, which has nothing to do with the exemption of liability between the organizers and the participants.

Q4: Is signing a liability waiver agreement necessarily equivalent to being exempt from liability?

No. The risk notification letter cannot exempt the responsibility of those who act with intent or gross negligence, and the organizer's statutory obligation to provide security does not cease to exist simply because an agreement has been signed.

Q5: What should I do if I get injured while taking on the risk voluntarily?

First, proceed with insurance claims (accident insurance and event liability insurance). If there is evidence of malicious intent or negligence on the part of the organizers, reassess the claims to avoid unnecessary litigation.

The above Q&A is mainly based on the judicial practice in Beijing. 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.

VII. Related public cases (for reference only, not handled by our firm)

The following cases are all sourced from the official websites of courts at all levels, judicial authorities, and authoritative media, and are not related to the cases handled by our firm. They are provided solely for reference in understanding relevant adjudication rules and do not constitute opinions on specific cases.

[Case Number]The case number has not been made public.
[Trial Court]The People's Court of Chaoyang District, Beijing City (the second instance was upheld by the Third Intermediate People's Court of Beijing City)
[Judicial Summary]Song * and Zhou * participated in a 3V3 badminton competition. During the match, Song * suffered an injury to his right eye, resulting in the dislocation of his artificial lens and a vision drop to 0.05. The court held that badminton is a competitive sport with certain risks, and participants' voluntary participation is deemed as acceptance of the risks. The existing evidence cannot prove that Zhou * had intentional or gross negligence. According to the self-risk assumption clause in Article 1176 of the Civil Code, all of Song *'s claims were dismissed, and the appellate court upheld the original judgment.
[Source]China Court Network, January 2021 (2021-01)

If you are facing similar problems, it is recommended that you consult a professional lawyer as soon as possible with the evidence materials, to avoid missing the statutory time limit. →Personal injury legal services·Beijing Henglu 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. In the event of a dispute, please consult a practicing lawyer in a timely manner.