当"说走就走的探险"屡次触发危机时，我们不得不深思：结伴同行却未能阻止悲剧发生，责任究竟该如 何界定？"征服自然"的豪情，是否应让位于"敬畏生命"的底线？ "一步踏空"后的生死相隔 2025年6月，阿石、阿明、阿力、阿花与小王五人相约挑战一处未开发的野山，计划穿越未开放区域抵 达顶峰。 转自：北京日报客户端 "一步踏空"，户外爱好者小王的生命永远定格在了大熊猫国家公园非核心保护区的未开发野山上。 这场本应充满挑战与美景的"征服雪山之巅"探险，因五人忽视山脚那块醒目的红色警示牌——"未开放 区域，禁止擅入"，而演变成了一场无法挽回的悲剧。 出发前，小王在群里满怀期待地畅想："听说山顶的日出能让所有疲惫都烟消云散。" 然而，如今他的亲属却泣不成声："他是我家的独子，我们连他最后一面都没能见到……" 出发前，几人曾在社交媒体分享行程："征服成都之巅！""原始秘境，绝美冰川！"配图中，雪峰在晨光 中闪耀，却无人标注"此处禁止擅入"的警示。 6月30日清晨，阿力和小王从营地先行出发。然而，14:40之后，小王在群里再无动态。随后，三人开始 在山上焦急寻找，并辗转联系二人亲属报警。 搜救持续两天，7月2日，当队员找到瑟瑟 ...

【#滑雪撞伤人责任如何划分##滑雪场需承担全方位安全保障义务#】"滑雪小白"不受控制地快速俯冲， 多人躲避不及被"铲飞"；原本滑得好好的，却被他人突然"追尾"……滑雪爱好者小王近期在某雪场滑雪 时，与前方缓慢下行的滑雪初学者小刘意外碰撞致其受伤，小王认为自己正常滑行而下并无过错，二人 因此产生纠纷。爆火的滑雪季，碰撞、摔倒等安全事故时有发生。不少滑雪爱好者表示，并非所有人都 了解滑雪运动的规则，以及相关防护避让措施，在雪场滑雪时曾遇到过被撞击、雪友违规坐在雪道内自 己避让不及发生碰撞等情况。滑雪中发生意外碰撞，责任如何划分？"自甘风险"能免责吗？《法治日 报》律师专家库成员、广东广和律师事务所高级合伙人尹玉律师，对此给出专业解读！尹玉：司法实践 中，一般认为滑雪运动是一项具有较高危险性的体育活动，参与者应充分认识到参加该项运动所面临的 风险。我国民法典中规定了文体活动的"自甘风险"规则，但需要注意的是，"自甘风险"仅适用于其他参 与者无故意或重大过失的情形，并非所有滑雪碰撞事故的"免责挡箭牌"。滑雪中一旦发生意外碰撞事 故，责任划分需结合各方过错程度、具体情形来看。如果被撞人有雪道违规停留、突然横穿雪道等情 ...

Core Insights - The winter season for 2025-2026 has begun, with an early opening of ski resorts in northern China due to cold waves, leading to increased visitor traffic. However, safety issues related to skiing need to be addressed as the number of ice and snow-related legal cases has surged significantly since the Winter Olympics [1][2]. Group 1: Legal Cases and Responsibilities - The number of ice and snow-related legal cases in Yanqing District has increased dramatically, with 47 cases reported from January 2023 to October 2025, compared to only 7 cases in 2023 [1]. - A typical case involved a skier who was injured in a collision, where the court ruled that skiing is a high-risk sport and the injured party voluntarily assumed the risks, thus limiting the liability of the ski company [2]. - The legal framework surrounding skiing accidents is influenced by the principle of "self-assumed risk," which complicates the determination of liability in collisions between skiers [2]. Group 2: Safety Awareness and Regulations - Many novice skiers are unfamiliar with skiing rules and regulations, which can lead to disputes over responsibility in accidents. Established skiing regions have clearer guidelines compared to China [3]. - The lack of awareness about safety rules among beginners can result in misinterpretations of proper skiing techniques, as seen in a notable case where a skilled skier was injured by a novice who did not follow correct practices [3]. - There is a call for better education on skiing rules and safety measures to foster a culture of responsibility among participants [11]. Group 3: Insurance and Risk Management - The complexity of ski-related disputes is exacerbated by insurance issues, as ski resorts cannot mandate insurance purchases, leading to many beginners skiing without coverage [4]. - Ski resorts are increasingly offering public liability insurance, but this does not cover collisions between skiers, highlighting the need for individuals to take personal responsibility for their safety [4]. Group 4: Coaching Qualifications and Standards - The certification system for ski instructors in China is still developing, with a lack of standardized qualifications leading to confusion among consumers regarding the competence of instructors [6][7]. - Larger ski resorts tend to have more reliable coaching staff due to rigorous training and assessment protocols, but many instructors are seasonal workers, resulting in inconsistent quality across the industry [7]. - The presence of unregulated "black coaches" poses additional risks, as they lack formal employment ties to ski resorts, complicating accountability in case of accidents [7]. Group 5: Emerging Snow Sports and Regulatory Challenges - New snow sports such as snow dragon boating and snow football are gaining popularity, but they lack clear safety management and liability frameworks, leading to potential risks for participants [8][9]. - The evolving business models in the ice and snow industry, including pre-paid and group purchase schemes, create complex legal relationships that need to be clarified to ensure consumer protection [10]. - The industry faces challenges in balancing innovation with safety, as emerging sports often do not have established standards for operation and personnel qualifications [10].

Core Viewpoint - The case revolves around the determination of whether an employee's death during a company-organized team-building activity should be classified as a work-related injury, raising questions about responsibility and risk acceptance [1][4]. Group 1: Incident Overview - In March 2021, an employee named Li Chengguang participated in a tug-of-war competition organized by a partner construction company, which was deemed a company activity [2]. - After the competition, Li suddenly fell ill and died due to a heart condition, prompting his mother to apply for a work injury recognition [2][3]. Group 2: Legal Proceedings - The local human resources bureau recognized Li's death as a work-related injury based on the circumstances of the incident, but the real estate company contested this decision through administrative litigation [3][6]. - The court found that the tug-of-war event was directly related to the company's business objectives and that Li's participation was mandated by his employer, thus qualifying the incident as a work-related injury [5][6]. Group 3: Court's Rationale - The court emphasized that the activity was organized to enhance team cohesion and had a clear business connection, which justified its classification as an extension of work duties [5][10]. - The judge ruled that Li's participation during work hours and under employer direction did not constitute voluntary risk-taking, but rather a legitimate work-related activity [6][11]. Group 4: Implications for Labor Relations - The case highlights the importance of defining the boundaries between work-related injuries and personal risk, emphasizing the employer's responsibility for employee safety during work-related activities [10][11]. - The ruling reinforces the principle that employers should bear the risks associated with activities that are conducted for the benefit of the company, thereby balancing the rights and responsibilities of both parties in the labor relationship [10][11].