What happened:
Mr. Jin, a football enthusiast living in Beijing, is passionate about participating in various football activities, including friendly matches organized by his friends. One day, he participated in one such friendly match, and his opponents included Mr. Yang, who also loves football.
The game was intense and friendly, with players from both sides putting their heart and soul into every chance of possession and attack. At that time, Mr. Kim, as an attacker, received a pass from his teammates and was about to break forward with the ball. At the same time, Mr. Yang on the defensive side reacted quickly and tried to stop Mr. Kim's attack by breaking the ball.
At the moment when the two of them came into contact with the football at the same time, Mr. Yang's foot accidentally collided with Mr. Kim's foot. Because Mr. Kim was in a state of power and his center of gravity was unstable, the collision caused him to lose his balance and fall to the ground. At first, Mr. Kim may not have realized the severity of the injury, but then he felt a sharp pain in his hand and found that his hand was injured.
After the race, Mr. Kim went to the hospital for a check-up and was diagnosed with a fracture of the third metacarpal bone in his right hand. In the face of this sudden injury, Mr. Jin believed that it was caused by Mr. Yang's foul action while defending, so he decided to protect his rights and interests through legal means and sued Mr. Yang in court.
Demands of both parties:
In court, the two sides engaged in a heated debate about the cause of Mr. Kim's injuries and who was responsible. Mr. Jin insisted that Mr. Yang's foul action was the direct cause of his injury, and therefore demanded that Mr. Yang compensate him for various economic losses such as medical expenses, lost work expenses, nutrition expenses, and disability compensation. Mr Yeung, on the other hand, argued that his defensive movements were routine, not intentional or grossly negligent, and that the game of football was inherently risky, and that he should not be held accountable for this.
Court Proceedings:
After the trial, the court finally adopted the application of the "willing to risk" clause, holding that Mr. Jin, as an adult who voluntarily participated in the football match, should have foreseen the possible risks of the game and bear the consequences arising therefrom. At the same time, the court held that Mr. Yang's defensive actions did not exceed a reasonable range and there was no intentional or gross negligence, so it ruled that Mr. Yang should not be liable for Mr. Jin's economic losses. This verdict is both a sign of respect for sportsmanship and a reminder to all participants to fully understand and accept the risks of sporting activities themselves.
Judge Liu Wei gave a detailed analysis:
After a detailed examination of the injury case between Mr. Jin and Mr. Yang, Judge Liu Wei of the Fangshan District People's Court of Beijing conducted a comprehensive and in-depth analysis, focusing on the application of the self-willed risk clause and the balance between the subjective state of the defendant's conduct and the risk of the game.
The judge pointed out that when evaluating the conduct of the defendant Mr. Yang, it was necessary to comprehensively consider the risks inherent in the special environment of the football match, and at the same time deeply analyze the intent and magnitude of the defendant's actions and the subjective state behind them. By analysing the video of the game, the court clearly found that Mr. Yang's ball break was intended to fight for control of the football and not to directly attack or injure Mr. Jin's body. This judgment is based on the competitive nature of the game, where physical contact and confrontation between players is inevitable and is usually fought for possession rather than intentionally harming the opposition.
Further, the judge emphasised that even if Mr Yeung's conduct violated certain rules of the football match or was considered a foul, this did not amount to intent or gross negligence in the legal sense. Especially in football, tactical fouls, although intentional, are often intended for strategic considerations rather than directly injuring the opponent, so they cannot simply be equated with legal wrongdoing.
In addition, the court took into account the level of competition of the parties. As an amateur soccer enthusiast, Mr. Yang's control over the strength, angle and direction of his kicks is difficult to match the precision of a professional player. At the same time, Mr. Kim, as a football enthusiast with some experience, failed to effectively cushion the force when he fell to the ground, which also had a certain relationship with the result of his injury.
Final Verdict:
Based on the above analysis, the court finally found that Mr. Yang was not intentional or grossly negligent in relation to Mr. Jin's fall injury. Therefore, according to the self-risk clause, Mr. Jin, as an adult who voluntarily participates in a football match, should bear the risks and consequences that may arise from the game. On April 22 this year, the Fangshan District People's Court of Beijing issued a judgment rejecting all of Mr. Jin's claims. Subsequently, the Beijing No. 2 Intermediate People's Court upheld the original verdict in the second instance.
Judge Liu Wei also took advantage of this case to remind the majority of participants in cultural and sports activities that they should fully understand the risks of the event before participating in the event, and consciously abide by the rules of competition during the event and fight reasonably. At the same time, it is recommended to provide additional protection for your rights and interests through warm-up activities, wearing protective gear, and purchasing insurance. This not only helps to reduce the occurrence of injury incidents, but also helps to promote the healthy and orderly development of cultural and sports activities.
Of course, specific things need to be analyzed on a case-by-case basis, not all injuries on the court cannot be held accountable, as long as it is an action within a reasonable range and there is no malicious infringement, it can be accepted.