First case of sudden death in marathon race in China

category:Global
 First case of sudden death in marathon race in China


In 2016 Xiamen Haicang international half marathon competition occurred runner sudden death event, the deceased Wu Mougang family members of the competition operator and transfer number cloth Li Mouhua to court, the competition operator and Li Mouhua jointly and severally compensation of Wus death compensation, funeral expenses, the living expenses of the dependants, transportation, spirit A total of more than 123 million yuan to soothe the gold. In the first instance, Xiamen Haicang District Court held that there was no evidence that Wus steel was injured by external or environmental aspects or caused by external or environmental reasons, and its final unfortunate death could be attributed to its own factors. Although the operator of the event is negligent in the management of the events involved in the event, Li Mouhuas violation of the number of violation of the number allows others to run for the race, but neither can determine that there is a legal cause and effect relationship with the results of the death of Wu. The court therefore confirmed that the operator and Li Mouhua should not be liable for damages to Wu Mougangs death. The three plaintiffs claimed that the tort liability for damages could not be established by the operator and Li Mouhua. The court refused to support the plaintiff and dismissed the original claim. The plaintiff expressed his disapproval in court and appealed to the intermediate peoples Court of Xiamen. In the second instance, the plaintiff changed the original claim amount of 123 yuan to 55 yuan in the appellate application. The intermediate peoples Court of Xiamen recently heard the case. After the trial, the court held that although the operator of the event was negligent in the management of the events involved in the event, Li Mouhuas violation of the number of illegal transfers allowed others to run for the race, but no legal causation was found between the results of the death of Wus steel. Therefore, the competition operator and Li Mouhua do not have to bear the liability for the death of Wu Mougang, the plaintiff direction event operators and Li Mouhua claim infringement damages can not be established, so do not support. To sum up, the court of second instance held that the plaintiffs appeal request was insufficient, and that the first trial should be upheld, and the appeal was rejected and the original judgment was upheld. Source: Xinhua news agency new media special responsibility editor: Guo Ping _B7442 In the first instance, Xiamen Haicang District Court held that there was no evidence that Wus steel was injured by external or environmental aspects or caused by external or environmental reasons, and its final unfortunate death could be attributed to its own factors. Although the operator of the event is negligent in the management of the events involved in the event, Li Mouhuas violation of the number of violation of the number allows others to run for the race, but neither can determine that there is a legal cause and effect relationship with the results of the death of Wu. The court therefore confirmed that the operator and Li Mouhua should not be liable for damages to Wu Mougangs death. The three plaintiffs claimed that the tort liability for damages could not be established by the operator and Li Mouhua. The court refused to support the plaintiff and dismissed the original claim. The plaintiff expressed his disapproval in court and appealed to the intermediate peoples Court of Xiamen. In the second instance, the plaintiff changed the original claim amount of 123 yuan to 55 yuan in the appellate application. The intermediate peoples Court of Xiamen recently heard the case. After the trial, the court held that although the operator of the event was negligent in the management of the events involved in the event, Li Mouhuas violation of the number of illegal transfers allowed others to run for the race, but no legal causation was found between the results of the death of Wus steel. Therefore, the competition operator and Li Mouhua do not have to bear the liability for the death of Wu Mougang, the plaintiff direction event operators and Li Mouhua claim infringement damages can not be established, so do not support. To sum up, the court of second instance held that the plaintiffs appeal request was insufficient, and that the first trial should be upheld, and the appeal was rejected and the original judgment was upheld.