One person died while riding together, and seven riders lost 38 thousand. The second instance of the “first case of cycling circle” was

Li Tiezhu/Beijing Youth Daily reported that Mr.

Liu was killed in a traffic accident during a cycling activity.

After that, Mr.

Liu’s family brought seven cyclists and a cycling association with him to court, claiming more than 1.46 million yuan for various losses.

At that time, the case was called “the first case of cycling circle” in the cycling circle.

The court of first instance rejected all the claims of the family members after trial, and the family members appealed to the Beijing First Intermediate Court.

Recently, the Beijing First Intermediate People’s Court awarded a total compensation of 38000 yuan to seven riders.

In September 2015, a cyclist was killed in an accident while riding.

In a WeChat group of cyclists, Mr.

Tang put forward an initiative, and several cyclists, including Mr.

Liu, responded.

They agreed to carry out a cycling activity to and from Mentougou on the 12th.

At noon of the same day, a motorcade composed of more than 20 riders arrived at the river near Anjiazhuang in Mentougou, and then they barbecued and drank.

At about 1:30 p.m., the activity was basically over, and all the riders dispersed immediately, leaving only 8 people, including Mr.

Liu, who was still sleeping.

At 4pm, Mr.

Liu woke up and eight people formed a convoy and returned along the double line of National Highway 109.

On the way of riding, Mr.

Liu fell at the end of the queue, and a traffic accident occurred at the downhill of the railway entrance at Luopoling.

The tire at the scene of the accident completely exploded and the frame broke.

Mr.

Liu was then sent to the Mentougou District Hospital for treatment, but died of severe head injury on the same day.

After the comprehensive investigation of the traffic police, it is considered that the traffic accident is unilateral.

It is understood that most of the participants in this cycling activity do not know their real names, and the barbecue and catering expenses are paid by the participants together, and there is no case that the parties benefit from it.

The family sued and claimed 1.46 million yuan.

Last September, Mr.

Liu’s family sued Mr.

Tang and other seven people, as well as the Cycling Association, to the court on the grounds of disputes over the right to life, health and body rights, claiming 1.46 million yuan.

In the first trial, the Cycling Association said that they were not profit-making organizations.

Mr.

Liu was once registered as a member of the Association, but the event he participated in was not organized by the Association, but was organized by himself.

The Association was not responsible for Mr.

Liu’s death.

Seven people, including Mr.

Tang, said that the cycling activity on the day of the accident was completely a spontaneous companion of the riders.

Mr.

Liu and them had no contractual relationship or legal obligations, and they should not assume responsibility.

A cycling enthusiast once told the Beijing Youth Daily that this case has a great influence in the cycling circle, and the people in their circle called it “the first case of cycling circle”.

The court of first instance held that because of the danger of spontaneous outdoor sports, participants who voluntarily participated in such activities should be deemed to voluntarily bear the corresponding risks.

The organizers of self-help outdoor sports are not all decision makers, and their decisions are not necessarily comprehensive or correct.

As long as there is no obvious gross fault, they should not be required to bear responsibility.

Later, the court ruled against all the claims of Mr.

Liu’s family.

The family members were not satisfied and appealed to the Beijing First Intermediate Court.

The second instance changed the judgment of Qiyou to 38000 yuan.

Recently, the Beijing First Intermediate People’s Court changed the judgment of the second instance of the case after trial, and decided that Mr.

Qiyou Tang and others should bear the corresponding liability for compensation.

The court held that in the social-level friendship behavior similar to the appointment and riding, the parties do not bear the obligations that must be performed.

However, once the person involved in the cycling activities with practical actions, there was not only a simple engagement in this case, but also seven people like Mr.

Tang and Mr.

Liu rode together along the same route after the engagement, thus creating a higher duty of care between them than the general duty of care.

There are many steep slopes and curves in the route selected by Mr.

Tang as the organizer, which increases the risk of this cycling activity.

However, there is no evidence to show that Mr.

Tang has any warning and advice on everyone’s drinking behavior.

On the contrary, there is evidence to show that Mr.

Tang himself also drinks with everyone.

In addition, as the organizer, as long as Mr.

Tang arranges or suggests one or two riders to follow around Mr.

Liu to remind or provide help at any time, the probability of Mr.

Liu’s unilateral traffic accident will be reduced, and the situation that no one is on the scene in the event of a traffic accident that delays the golden rescue time will not exist.

The court held that in the joint riding activities like this case, the purpose of everyone’s team riding is to exercise and enhance friendship on the one hand, and to reduce risks on the other hand.

As a person with full capacity for civil conduct, and as a cyclist with certain riding experience, Mr.

Liu still drinks and rides regardless of safety, and causes serious consequences of death due to unilateral traffic accidents on the return journey of cycling.

He himself has major mistakes in the occurrence of the damage consequences, and should bear the main responsibility for the damage consequences.

The negligent behavior of Mr.

Tang and other seven people has very little influence on the cause of their death, and Mr.

Tang and other seven people have performed certain duty of care before the incident and actively participated in the rescue after the incident.

Mr.

Tang, as the organizer, plays a greater role in the cycling activities than the ordinary participants, and should bear relatively large responsibilities, while the other six people should bear relatively small responsibilities.

In the end, the second instance of the Beijing First Intermediate Court revoked the judgment of the court of first instance, and changed Mr.

Tang to assume the compensation liability of 8000 yuan, while the other six people each assumed the compensation liability of 5000 yuan.

Netizens commented on Runer: Some teams are more formal and require to buy accident insurance.

Sign a contract to bear unexpected risks in advance.

This kind of unprofitable activity should not be undertaken by others.

Lonely Monkey: We used to organize activities by car club to buy insurance for everyone, like travel insurance.

One insurance seller was brought in the group, and the organizer would collect information and buy it from him.

A person costs dozens of yuan.

The flowers in the mountains are fragrant: in the future, all groups and partners should sign an agreement, and they should be responsible for any accident.
.