In recent years, outdoor sports have become an increasingly popular leisure activity for more and more people. Mountaineering, hiking, cycling, and other activities have become new choices for young people to get close to nature, release stress, and challenge themselves. Outdoor sports also come with high risks. According to incomplete statistics from the "2024 China Outdoor Exploration Accident Report" by the China Exploration Association, hiking has become the "hardest hit area" for outdoor accidents. In 2024, among the known accidents nationwide, hiking projects involved 822 people, accounting for 73% of the total number of accidents; Mountaineering is the sport with the highest mortality rate, causing 17 deaths in 24 accidents, accounting for 20% of all deaths. How should the responsibility for outdoor sports accidents be divided? If an accident occurs at a popular "wild scenic spot" on the internet, should the platform or recommender be held responsible? The reporter interviewed multiple legal experts regarding these issues. Tourists: Under the principle of self assumption of risk, the responsible party, Luan Yan, senior partner of Beijing Kangda Law Firm, pointed out that tourists who voluntarily participate in activities knowing the risks usually have to bear the corresponding losses themselves. If there are organizers, they should bear the responsibility. Adults with full capacity for civil conduct should make accurate judgments about their own actions and consequences. According to the principle of "self acceptance of risk", if a tourist knowingly visits a scenic spot despite knowing that there are significant safety hazards, it is their own fault that causes damage and they should bear primary or even full responsibility. Violation of safety obligations by adventure organizers: Those who fail to fulfill their security obligations shall be held responsible. Professor Huang Zhong from the School of Civil and Commercial Law at Southwest University of Political Science and Law stated that according to the Civil Code, if the organizers of adventure activities fail to fulfill their security obligations and cause damage to participants, they shall bear tort liability. To determine whether the obligation has been fulfilled, it is necessary to consider comprehensively whether the activity is paid, the risk level, the number of participants, and the rescue situation. Professor Wang Yegang from the Law School of the Central University of Finance and Economics further pointed out that organizers often face high-risk situations such as sudden weather changes and lack of rescue through online gatherings of participants to "wild scenic spots", which can easily cause personal and property losses. This type of organizer belongs to the category of mass activity organizers as stipulated in Article 1198 of the Civil Code, and its civil liability mainly stems from the violation of security obligations. The organizer should conduct a professional assessment of the route, weather, terrain, etc. before the event, verify the risk of natural disasters, and evaluate the participants' physical fitness and skill matching. If risks are not fully assessed, warning obligations are not fulfilled, and emergency rescue is lacking, it constitutes a violation of obligations and should bear civil liability in accordance with the law. ”Wang Yegang said. User who posted a guide to "wild scenic spots": Fault and profit are key factors. Luan Yan believes that according to the Civil Code, whether the recommender bears responsibility should be considered based on various factors such as whether they have subjective intent, whether they profit from it, and the severity of the circumstances. If the recommender knowingly recommends the relevant scenic spots or tourist routes despite knowing that they are major dangerous situations, or that the relevant scenic spots are undeveloped, without providing relevant risk warnings, it may be considered as having fault or subjective intention for others to refer to their guide for sightseeing and suffer personal or property damage. If the recommender expands the promotion of the strategy through certain means or profits from the strategy, it may be deemed as having a profit-making purpose and serious circumstances. Based on the above situation, the recommender is likely to be ordered to bear certain liability for infringement compensation. ”Luan Yan said. Wang Yegang added that if the behavior or route recommended by the recommender in the guide violates legal provisions, they should be deemed at fault. Otherwise, it may be necessary to comprehensively determine whether the recommender is at fault based on factors such as their profession, the scope of influence of the strategy, and the target audience. In addition to civil liability, recommenders may also face legal risks of administrative and criminal liability. For example, if the behavior of the recommender causes public order chaos, they may face administrative penalties according to the Public Security Administration Punishment Law. If the behavior of the recommender is malicious and causes serious social harm, it may be deemed a crime and face criminal punishment according to the Criminal Law. Ordinary users and internet celebrity bloggers: There is a high or low duty of care. Wang Yegang pointed out that internet celebrity bloggers have a higher degree of social attention and a larger scope of influence on their behavior. Therefore, their duty of care when implementing recommendation behavior should also be higher than that of ordinary people. After a damage accident occurs, compared with ordinary users, the possibility of identifying the fault of internet celebrity bloggers is greater. On the one hand, internet celebrity bloggers have a large number of fans and a wider range of influence, so the duty of care required from them should be stricter. However, the exposure rate of ordinary users' posts is low and the impact is small, so the determination of their responsibility should not be too strict. On the other hand, internet celebrity bloggers post a lot of homogeneous content, especially full-time travel bloggers, who should have a better understanding of the risks associated with unconventional travel behaviors and routes, and should have a higher duty of care. However, ordinary users have limited professional knowledge and are not sensitive to risks, so the determination of their responsibilities should not be too strict. ”Wang Yegang said. Online platforms: both notification and review obligations coexist. Luan Yan believes that platforms have a certain obligation to review the content posted by users, and their recommendation mechanism will also affect the dissemination of related strategies. Therefore, they have a certain risk notification obligation. If they fail to fulfill the necessary notification obligation or fail to verify or remove relevant strategies in a timely manner after receiving complaints and reports, they should bear tort liability. Huang Zhong pointed out that online platforms usually have no substantive review obligation for "internet celebrity check-in" strategies. Unless the platform knows or should know that such strategies pose a danger to people and property and fails to take necessary measures to avoid damage, it should not bear civil liability. In Wang Yegang's view, the platform may need to bear the tort liability for violating its security obligations. According to relevant provisions of the Civil Code and the E-commerce Law, if platform operators fail to fulfill their reasonable and prudent security obligations and cause harm to others, they shall bear tort liability. This kind of responsibility also belongs to fault responsibility. If the platform has fulfilled its security obligations, provided warnings about the risks that may arise from the "Internet celebrity check-in" strategy, and taken necessary measures such as limiting and deleting non compliant strategies that have been discovered, and has no fault for the damage results, it is not required to bear responsibility. (New Society)