Who is responsible for the loss of the injured person who accidentally tripped while walking and using their phone? Recently, the Shanghai First Intermediate People's Court (hereinafter referred to as the Shanghai First Intermediate People's Court) concluded a dispute over the right to health. A customer fell while looking down at their phone after finishing their meal and left the restaurant. The court demanded compensation for medical expenses, lost wages, and other costs, but rejected their lawsuit. Walking outside the restaurant while looking at her phone and accidentally falling. One afternoon, Ms. Li was dining in the restaurant. After finishing her meal, Ms. Li walked outside while looking at her phone. When she walked to the staircase area outside the restaurant, she accidentally fell to the ground due to being completely focused on her phone. The surveillance video outside the restaurant clearly recorded this scene: when Ms. Li walked out of the restaurant and reached the staircase area, her left foot had just stepped on the left slope of the staircase. Before she could lift her right foot, she slipped along the slope and lost her balance. Although my right arm was propped up on the steps, I still slid all the way to the road below the steps. There is no rain or snow on the monitoring screen, and there is no snow, water, or freezing on the steps. After falling, Ms. Li sat on the ground for about 5 seconds, then stood up and continued walking while looking at her phone before leaving the scene. 10 days later, Ms. Li went to the hospital on her own and was diagnosed with a fracture of the right transverse process of the lumbar spine. Ms. Li believes that the fracture was caused by a fall at the restaurant entrance. The restaurant and commercial management company did not fulfill their safety obligations, did not repair the worn steps in a timely manner, and did not fully fulfill their management responsibilities. Ms. Li then filed a lawsuit with the court, demanding that the two companies jointly compensate her for medical expenses, lost wages, and other expenses totaling over 60000 yuan. The court rejected all claims in both the first and second trials. After trial, the first instance court found that Ms. Li, as a person with full capacity for civil conduct, fell due to her failure to fulfill her safety precautions, and the restaurant and commercial management company were not at fault for this. Therefore, they cannot be held liable for compensation. The first instance court ruled to dismiss all of Ms. Li's claims. Ms. Li is dissatisfied and has appealed to the Shanghai First Intermediate People's Court. After trial, the Shanghai First Intermediate People's Court believes that the act of looking down at her phone while walking poses a significant safety hazard to the perpetrator. Ms. Li continued to look down at her phone before falling, creating a safety risk for herself. At the same time, meteorological data and monitoring videos indicate that there were no other objective interference factors at the scene that could affect pedestrian safety at the time of the incident, and there were no obvious abnormalities in the staircase area. The obligation to ensure safety in public places such as hotels and shopping malls should be within reasonable limits and should not be overly harsh. As a restaurant owner, Ms. Li's behavior of looking down at her phone while passing through cannot be predicted or controlled. In summary, Shanghai First Intermediate People's Court rejected Ms. Li's application and upheld the original judgment. The judge stated that the safety obligation of public place operators and managers is not unlimited liability. Liu Jia, the presiding judge of the second instance of this case and the judge of the Shanghai First Intermediate People's Court, pointed out that the safety obligation of public place operators and managers is not unlimited liability, but is bounded by reasonable risk prevention. Operators should fulfill their reasonable obligations to alert and eliminate potential hazards in the premises, but are not responsible for damages caused by consumers' own fault. Lowering one's head to operate a mobile phone while walking is a disregard for one's own safety obligations, and this behavior puts oneself at foreseeable risk. In daily life, there are inevitably traces of normal use on public facilities such as stairs and roads. If their design and maintenance comply with regulations and there are no obvious safety hazards, managers cannot be criticized for "absolute safety". We should take a highly responsible attitude towards our own and others' personal safety, follow safe and healthy daily behavior norms, see the path under our feet clearly, and not be a "bowing down tribe". (New Society)