With an intoxicated teenage boy dead after falling from a first floor balcony, a court has finally ruled on the case. The restaurant that first served him alcohol is responsible. Yet, coming to that conclusion is a little more complicated than first appears.
The boy in question, then aged 16, attended junior-high school in his hometown before going out to work on the recommendation of his peer. They later ended up in Wuxi, where, out of boredom and frustration, the two of them one night arranged to get together at a nearby hotel.
Before they knew it, each of them had drank four or five bottles of beer and shared a bottle of “baijiu” in the hotel’s restaurant. Still not satisfied, they then called two friends, aged 14 and 20, to join them.
The party lasted from the early hours until 07:00, during which the four consumed 28 large bottles of beer and one bottle of baijiu. Becoming emotional at the prosprect of heartbreak, the boy in question broke down in tears, at which there was laughter from the neighbouring table.
A conflict ensued and police were quickly on the scene, but during their intervention, the boy broke free and fled the scene. Later that morning, he was found dead in a courtyard, presumed to have fallen from the balcony above.
Unable to accept the sudden loss of their son, the boy’s parents believed that his peers had not fulfilled their safety obligations to take care of and escort him, and that the hotel had repeatedly served alcohol to three minors and failed to provide timely and effective safety measures after their son became inebriated.
Hence the court case, reported by the Yangtze Evening News on 2 September, in which the boy’s parents sought compensation of 40 percent of the funeral expenses, compensation for the death, and other losses from their son’s peers, their guardians and the hotel.
Ultimately, the court found that although those who consume alcohol have a certain duty of care for their co drinkers, the fact that the boy had broken free from police obstruction means it cannot be concluded that the boy’s peers nor the hotel were at fault for failing to fulfil their obligations as to care.
However, the Law on the Protection of Minors also explicitly prohibits the sale of alcohol thereto. If difficult to determine whether they are minors, the establishment should request proof of ID.
Taking all of the aforementioned in to account, the court ultimately ruled that the hotel should bear a 5 percent compensation liability for the accident.
