Comment On The Case Of "Xiate Road" And Thinking About Similar Cases

DIY-tourism is still new in our country, our laws fail to stipulate it clearly. In thecase of “XiaTe Road”, the plaintiff, the defendant and the court have differentunderstandings on the safety and security obligation of the organizer. What is thesafety and security obligation? Is there any security obligation between organizer andparticipants in a DIY-tourism? What is the degree of safety and security obligation?Do the assumption of risk could release or reduce the liability? Whether the caseapplies to equitable liability? Specifically first, from The Tort Liability Law,DIY-tourism does not belong to the regulation of Mass activities. From The ContractLaw, there isn’t Effect of meaning between organizer and participants. From TheConsumer Protection Law, DIY-tourism does not belong to the proprietor. From theTheory of Advance Behavior, there is no protective duty between organizer andparticipants in law and the participant’s death due to the unpredictable disaster. FromThe Theory of Risk predictability, the participants are obvious dangers exist and enjoythe excitement of overcoming dangerous, the organizer is not accountable for theiractions. In short, there is not security obligation between organizer and participants ina DIY-tourism according to the five parts; Second, the victim have some of their ownfault for their death; Third, from the perspective of law application, the equitableliability is not applicable to the case.There have been several travel disputes in DIY-tourism from2008for present,according to the typed analysis of the convicted cases, we find that on the base of“The Same Verdict in the Similar Case”, we should use “Distinguishing Technique” tomaintain the judicial justice.