Wang Yang and his colleague Zhang Qian, along with a total of six people, spent 1,000 yuan to form a group purchase of a chase-themed escape room game at a certain game company's store. During the game, a real-life NPC appeared, and Zhang Qian collided with Wang Yang, causing Wang Yang to be injured. Afterwards, the game company transferred the store to a certain escape room company and deregistered. Upon investigation, the game company was a single-member limited liability company, with Li Kun as the shareholder. Wang Yang filed a lawsuit in court, requesting that Zhang Qian, the escape room company, and Li Kun compensate him for medical expenses, lost wages, nursing fees, nutrition fees, disability aids, hospital meal subsidies, and transportation costs, totaling more than 180,000 yuan. After the trial, the Haidian Court ruled to dismiss all of Wang Yang's claims.
Case Summary
The plaintiff, Wang Yang, stated that he and his colleagues purchased an escape room game operated by the escape room company as a group. During the game, a real-life NPC appeared, and Zhang Qian, while dodging, knocked over Wang Yang, resulting in injury. Wang Yang believed that the escape room company, as the operator, did not fulfill its safety guarantee obligations, reflected as follows: (1) The escape room space was narrow, the routes were winding, it was very dark, and there were many corners, passages, and turns, which made the space unable to accommodate the chase activity and number of participants required by the themed escape game; (2) The floor of the escape room was concrete with many obstacles, the game was chase-type, and the escape room company did not provide protective gear for players or take any safety measures; (3) Escape rooms are activities with certain risks, thrills, and horror elements, yet the escape room company did not provide necessary medical measures, did not treat Wang Yang, and did not promptly send him to the hospital. Regarding Zhang Qian, he collided with Wang Yang during the game and failed to exercise due care in the chase, showing gross negligence. Regarding Li Kun, even if the game's operator was the game company, after its deregistration, the actual rights and obligations were taken over by the escape room company. The game company was originally a 99% shareholder of the escape room company, later transferred to Li Kun, and subsequently deregistered. This clearly showed malicious collusion between the game company and the escape room company to evade operational responsibility through company deregistration. Even if the court could not verify that the escape room company inherited the actual rights and obligations of the game company, Li Kun, as the sole shareholder, actual controller, and liquidation head of the game company, should bear compensation responsibility.
The escape room company argued that it took over the operation of the concerned venue after Wang Yang's injury, and the previous operator was the game company, so Wang Yang's injury had nothing to do with the escape room company.
Zhang Qian argued that he participated in the escape room game together with Wang Yang and was aware before participation that the game involved a horror chase with real NPCs. The game itself had risks, all parties participated voluntarily, and should bear the risks themselves. Zhang Qian did not intentionally or grossly negligently cause Wang Yang's injury, and whether the game venue fulfilled safety obligations was irrelevant to him.
Li Kun argued that Wang Yang provided no evidence proving malicious collusion between Li Kun and the escape room company, and Li Kun and the game company were not the same entity, so Li Kun should not bear joint liability, with other defenses similar to those of the escape room company.
Court Trial
After trial, the court believes that in this case, based on the established facts, the activity Wang Yang participated in was an escape room chase game. This activity itself carries certain risks, so the norms of assumption of risk and safety obligations should be applied to determine the tort liability of the involved parties. Specifically:
Regarding Zhang Qian's responsibility: Combining the surveillance video at the time of the incident, Zhang Qian ran away after encountering a real-life NPC, which was a stress response due to being startled. Additionally, the game's theme involved chasing, and the physical contact or even collision between Zhang Qian and Wang Yang during the run was normal behavior within the escape room setting and did not violate the game rules. Therefore, it is insufficient to determine that Zhang Qian acted with intent or gross negligence. As a result, Zhang Qian does not bear tort liability.
Regarding Li Kun's responsibility: Li Kun, as the sole shareholder of the game company, would bear tort liability only if the game company itself is responsible for a tort. For the game company, as the operator of the escape room at the time of the incident, whether it bears tort liability depends on whether it fulfilled its safety obligations. Combining the surveillance video at the time of the incident:
First, from the perspective of facilities and equipment, the escape room space was small, the lighting dim, and included real-life NPCs, which are all features of escape room games. Furthermore, at the time of the incident, only Wang Yang and Zhang Qian were in the passage, and the floor and walls were flat, with no physical obstacles affecting participants’ chasing or running. Additionally, Wang Yang was wearing knee pads. The existing evidence is insufficient to prove that the escape room's facilities contained unreasonable danger.
Second, from the perspective of post-injury assistance, the current evidence is also insufficient to prove that the game company provided untimely medical aid.
Therefore, it is insufficient to determine that the game company failed to fulfill its safety obligations, and it does not need to bear tort liability. Accordingly, Li Kun also does not bear tort liability.
Regarding the escape room company's responsibility: As mentioned earlier, the escape room operator was the game company, not the escape room company. Moreover, Wang Yang's injury does not have a causal relationship with the escape room company, so the escape room company does not need to bear tort liability.
Ultimately, the court made the above judgment. Neither party appealed after the verdict, and the judgment has now taken effect.
Judge's Commentary
In recent years, immersive real-life escape games have emerged and become popular among adolescents due to their intellectual challenge, excitement, and interactivity. However, participants also face the risk of injury while enjoying the thrill and excitement of the game. When someone is injured while playing an escape room game, the parties potentially responsible usually include the operators of the escape room, the players participating in the game, and, if minors are involved, their guardians. So, who is ultimately responsible for the liability?
I. Safety Guarantee Obligations of Escape Room Operators Article 1198 of the Civil Code stipulates that if operators or managers of hotels, shopping malls, banks, stations, airports, stadiums, entertainment venues, or organizers of mass activities fail to fulfill their safety guarantee obligations and cause harm to others, they shall bear tort liability. Escape rooms are entertainment venues, and since escape room games involve elements of stimulation and fear, they have a relatively high risk factor. Compared to general operators, escape room operators have a higher degree of safety guarantee obligations, which mainly include: 1. Verifying participants' identity information before the game starts, checking whether participants meet the game requirements, providing full risk warnings and safety instructions, and emphasizing the potentially dangerous game sections with warnings; 2. Strengthening safety training for employees and providing timely and reasonable assistance to participants who need help; 3. Ensuring that the venue's hardware facilities meet safety requirements, paying attention to the flatness of the floor, placing clear and sufficient warning signs on potentially dangerous sections and equipment, and providing protective measures to participants if necessary; 4. Scientifically, safely, and reasonably designing the game scenarios, spatial layout, lighting, props, obstacles, and their placement. In this case, when Wang Yang was injured, the operator of the involved venue was the game company, not the escape room company, so the escape room company does not need to bear tort liability. The game company has been deregistered, and whether Li Kun, as its sole shareholder, bears responsibility depends on whether the game company fulfilled its safety guarantee obligations at the time of the incident. According to surveillance video from the time, although the space was relatively narrow, lighting dim, and there was a segment involving real-life NPCs, these were all part of the game's features. Combined with the content of later WeChat communications between Wang Yang and the game company staff, a related agreement was signed before the game, and the current evidence is insufficient to prove that the game company failed to provide risk warnings and safety instructions. Moreover, the video shows that at the time of the incident, the passage only had Wang Yang and Zhang Qian, with sufficient width for two people to walk side by side, and the floor and walls around the incident site were smooth with no obstacles on the path. Wang Yang was also wearing protective gear such as knee pads. Although the video shows Wang Yang was assisted out of the escape room by others, the current evidence is insufficient to prove that the game company delayed in providing aid. In summary, there is insufficient evidence to prove that the game company failed to fulfill its safety guarantee obligations, so the game company does not need to bear tort liability, and accordingly, Li Kun, as its sole shareholder, does not need to bear tort liability.
II. Liability of Other Participants in Escape Room Games Should Be Evaluated According to the Principle of Voluntary Assumption of Risk.
Article 1176 of the Civil Code stipulates that if a person voluntarily participates in cultural or sports activities with certain risks and suffers damage due to the actions of other participants, the victim cannot request other participants to bear tort liability; however, this does not apply if other participants intentionally or with gross negligence caused the damage. According to the above provision, the constitutive requirements of voluntary assumption of risk mainly include: first, the behavior involved has the possibility of causing damage to the actor; second, the actor has a certain understanding and foresight of the risk and possible damage; third, the actor knowingly participates in the cultural or sports activity voluntarily despite the risk.