训练受伤，只能自担风险？（以案说法）

Group 1 - The court ruled that the "self-assumed risk" principle does not apply in this case, as the injury was not caused by the actions of other participants but rather due to the responsibilities of the activity organizer [2] - The sports company, as a profit-oriented educational training institution, has a higher duty of education and management towards minors, and failed to adequately assess and mitigate risks after being informed of the minor's leg pain [2] - The court determined that the sports company bears 80% of the liability for the injury, considering the guardian's awareness of the minor's condition and their consent for training [3] Group 2 - The court emphasized that educational institutions cannot claim exemption from liability solely based on the inherent risks of the activities they teach, and must fulfill their educational and management responsibilities [2] - The absence of sufficient safety measures and proper response to the injury incident indicates a failure in the company's duty of care towards the minor [2] - The case highlights the legal obligations of educational institutions in ensuring the safety and well-being of their students during training activities [2][3]