Recently, the People's Court of Dadukou District, Chongqing, tried a dispute over infringement liability caused by the death of a fishing friend. After comprehensive examination of the evidence materials submitted by the plaintiff, the physical condition of the deceased, and the defendant's rescue process, it was determined that the fishing friend, as the defendant, did not engage in any infringement and should not be liable for compensation. The court ruled to reject all of the plaintiff's claims in accordance with the law. Zhang Xiaowei, Peng Jun, and Liu Zheng all work at a company in Dadukou District, Chongqing. Peng Jun is also Zhang Xiaowei's mentor. The three of them are all born in the 1980s, of similar age, and have a close relationship. They often make plans to go fishing together, and the initiator of each fishing trip is not fixed. Sometimes, they are not the only three friends who go fishing together. On June 3, 2024, Peng Jun proposed to go fishing and the three of them made an appointment to go fishing at Changshou Lake in the suburbs of Chongqing. In order to seize the best fishing opportunity, the three of them stayed near the fishing spot that night. At around 5 o'clock the next day, the three of them got up and divided their work. Peng Jun went to buy food, while Zhang Xiaowei and Liu Zheng packed their fishing equipment and headed to the fishing spot. At around 6 o'clock, Zhang Xiaowei suddenly felt unwell. Liu Zheng, at Zhang Xiaowei's request, helped him get medicine from the car and sent him back to his accommodation to rest. Along the way, he encountered Peng Jun who was returning from shopping. At 7:14, Peng Jun contacted Zhang Xiaowei's relatives on WeChat to inform them of his condition and inquire about his medical history. The relatives stated that they did not find any serious medical history. Zhang Xiaowei subsequently experienced symptoms such as fecal incontinence and chills, but at this time, he, who was conscious, refused the proposal of Peng and Liu to take him to the hospital. Not long after, Zhang Xiaowei suddenly started foaming at the mouth. At 7:49, Peng Jun called 120. At around 8:10, the ambulance arrived and after rescue efforts, Zhang Xiaowei was declared dead, ultimately confirmed as a sudden death caused by myocardial infarction. It was also found that the medicine carried by Zhang Xiaowei was mainly used to treat arthritis and relieve pain, and was not related to the disease that caused his death. After Zhang Xiaowei's death, his family believed that Peng Jun and Liu Zheng, who were fishing together, did not fulfill their rescue obligations. They sued the two to the court, demanding compensation of over 480000 yuan, and later changed the compensation amount to 50000 yuan. After the court trial, it was found that the fishing activity involved in the case had no organizer. The fishing activity involving three people has the characteristics of spontaneous organization, voluntary participation, and temporary nature, and there is no special organizational structure for the activity. Peng Jun did not require the other two individuals to obey the organization and management, and did not have the right to manage or profit from the fishing activity. He had an equal status with the other two individuals and was not the organizer of the fishing activity. The three of them were in a walking relationship. Secondly, fellow travelers have fulfilled their reasonable duty of care. Three people traveling together based on their fishing hobby are mainly for mutual care and friendly communication. There is only a reasonable duty of care that ordinary people can foresee between each other, such as the obligation to provide timely assistance in case of obvious accidents such as accidental drowning or animal bites. Zhang Xiaowei is a middle-aged man with no medical history, and the time from onset to death is extremely short. According to the standards of professional medical staff, Peng Jun and Liu Zheng were required to foresee the possibility of Zhang Xiaowei's death and respond promptly, which clearly exceeded the limit of reasonable duty of care. In summary, the court considers that the defendant in this case has not engaged in any infringement, and therefore rejects all of the plaintiff's claims. After the first instance judgment, the plaintiff did not file an appeal, and the judgment has already taken effect. (The characters in the article are all pseudonyms) [Judge's statement] The mutual assistance obligation between fishing friends should not exceed the necessary limit. Article 1198 of the Civil Code stipulates: "If the operators, managers, or organizers of public places such as hotels, shopping malls, banks, stations, airports, sports venues, entertainment venues, etc. fail to fulfill their safety protection obligations and cause harm to others, they shall bear tort liability." The safety protection obligation here cannot be extended to ordinary social activities similar to scheduled fishing, and it would be contrary to common sense to classify scheduled fishing as a mass activity. The judge reminds that the establishment of infringement and the determination of fault should not be overly demanding of peers, and the scope of assuming security and legal assistance obligations should not be arbitrarily expanded. The defendant in this case is not a professional medical staff and does not possess professional diagnostic and emergency capabilities. In the absence of a defined and agreed upon obligation, the rescue measures taken based on morality and friendship are in line with the conventional cognition of a rational person. The mutual assistance obligation between peers should be evaluated from a common sense and rational perspective and cannot exceed necessary limits. The verdict of this case promotes the core socialist values and once again proves that the law will not make those who actively save lives but fail to do so feel disheartened. (New Society)