此前，"28岁女律师被高空扔下的砖头砸中身亡"一事曾引发广泛关注。近日，此案的民事部分由长春市朝阳区人 民法院开庭审理，未当庭宣判。原告要求被告（万达集团相关公司、夜市管理方等涉事5方）赔偿死亡赔偿金、丧 葬费、被抚养人生活费、精神损害慰问金等，共计200余万元。 庭审时，法院曾询问各方是否同意调解。9月12日，被害人的姐姐娄女士告诉记者，对于庭审结果尚无法预 期，"看法院怎么处理"。 家属曾称悲剧本可避免 据此前报道，2023年6月22日，28岁的小娄从外地来长春游玩，路过红旗街的夜市小吃街时，被高空投下的砖头砸 中头部，不幸去世。当晚，长春警方将22岁、无业的男性嫌疑人周某抓获，采取刑事强制措施。同年11月27日， 该案一审在长春市中级人民法院开庭审理。 庭审中，原告方认为案发地点长期存在安全隐患，广场楼顶和楼道内随意堆放砖块，且此前已有多起高空抛物伤 人事件。被告需更多积极履行安全保障义务，如物业管理者在天台安排人手巡视，巡视住宅内建筑垃圾是否及时 清除，以及活动经营者是否应在场地上空搭建临时性安全防护网等。原告方称，各被告均未妥善履行安全保障义 务，应当承担相应责任。 各被告方也分别进行了答辩和陈述。 ...

Core Viewpoint - The court ruled that the KTV operator is 70% responsible for the damage to the consumer's phone camera due to insufficient warning about the risks associated with laser lights, while the consumer bears 30% of the responsibility for not paying attention to the warnings [1][2]. Group 1: Incident Details - The incident occurred when a consumer, Xiaomei, discovered purple spots on her phone's front camera after using it in a KTV room equipped with laser lights [1]. - The damage was confirmed to be caused by laser burns, as indicated by a repair shop's assessment [1][2]. - The KTV operator initially denied responsibility, claiming the laser lights were certified and that warnings were posted [2]. Group 2: Court Findings - The court found that the KTV did have laser lights installed, which could potentially damage cameras, even if not directly aimed at them [2]. - Evidence presented by the consumer, including consumption records and photo comparisons, established a strong likelihood that the damage occurred at the KTV [2]. - The court noted that the warnings provided by the KTV were not sufficiently prominent or frequent to effectively inform consumers of the risks [2]. Group 3: Liability and Compensation - The court determined that the KTV operator failed to adequately inform consumers about the risks associated with the laser lights, leading to their 70% liability [2]. - The consumer was found to have some responsibility for not heeding the warnings, resulting in her 30% liability [2]. - The total repair cost was assessed at 1198 yuan, with the KTV required to compensate the consumer 838.6 yuan [2].

Core Viewpoint - The court ruled that the defendants, who were fishing companions, did not commit any tortious act and should not bear compensation liability, dismissing all claims from the plaintiff [3][4]. Group 1: Incident Overview - The incident involved three individuals, Zhang Xiaowei, Peng Jun, and Liu Zheng, who went fishing together at Changshou Lake in Chongqing [2]. - Zhang Xiaowei experienced sudden health issues, leading to his death from a myocardial infarction, despite attempts by his companions to assist him [2][3]. Group 2: Court's Reasoning - The court determined that the fishing activity was spontaneous and informal, lacking any organized structure or management, thus the defendants were not considered organizers of the event [3]. - The court found that the companions fulfilled their reasonable duty of care, as the rapid onset of Zhang's condition exceeded what could be reasonably anticipated by the defendants [3]. Group 3: Legal Implications - The ruling emphasized that the mutual assistance obligations among friends in casual social activities should not be overextended, distinguishing them from formal public venues with defined safety responsibilities [4]. - The court highlighted that the defendants were not professional medical personnel and their actions were consistent with common sense and reasonable expectations in such situations [4].

Group 1 - The case involves a fitness center that offers a shooting experience, where participants are required to wear safety equipment in the game area due to the inherent risks of the activities [1] - The court ruled that the fitness center is 70% responsible for the injuries sustained by the plaintiff, while the plaintiff is 30% responsible, and the minor involved bears no liability [1][2] - The court emphasized that the fitness center, as an operator of a potentially dangerous activity, has a duty to ensure participant safety and failed to adequately supervise the environment during the game [1][2] Group 2 - The court noted that the plaintiff, being a fully capable adult, did not take necessary safety precautions despite being warned about the risks, thus sharing some responsibility for the incident [2] - The court determined that the minor, under the supervision of a coach and within the designated area, did not act negligently, and therefore should not be held liable for the incident [2] - The ruling highlighted the importance of operators providing a safe environment, conducting regular safety checks, and ensuring proper monitoring during activities to prevent accidents [2]