這起案件發生在中國，引起廣泛關注與爭議。事件的主角是一名66歲的男子，他與情人在酒店發生性關係後，意外猝死。根據事後的調查與庭審記錄，該男子在性行為結束後，出現呼嚕聲逐漸減弱、最終停止的情況。情人察覺到這一變化後，認為男子已經死亡，但並沒有撥打急救電話，也沒有嘗試任何急救措施，而是選擇離開現場。

情人後來在庭上陳述時表示，當時自己還處於半睡半醒的狀態，第一次遇到這種情況，不知該如何應對，因此選擇先回家，並服用降壓藥。這段說詞引發輿論的強烈質疑，認為她的行為冷漠且缺乏基本的緊急救助意識。

男子去世後，其妻子與子女得知情況，隨即將情人告上法庭，要求賠償55萬元人民幣，理由是情人明知男子身體異常卻未及時施救，延誤搶救時機，對死亡結果存在一定責任。

法院經審理後認為，儘管男子的死亡與其自身年齡及身體狀況有直接關聯，但情人在事件發生時未及時採取救助措施，例如撥打120或呼叫酒店工作人員，確實存在過錯，對男子的死亡結果有一定的因果關係。因此，法院裁定情人需承擔部分民事賠償責任。

此案的爭議焦點在於「情人是否有法律義務救助」以及「她的不作為是否構成法律上的過錯」。根據中國現行民法典的規定，在他人生命處於危險狀態時，具備救助能力的人應該採取合理措施進行救助，否則可能要承擔相應的民事責任。法院的判決在法律上有一定依據，但也引發了關於道德責任與法律責任界限的討論。

整起事件既涉及婚外情、道德評價，又牽扯到急救義務與法律責任的判定，因而在社會輿論中掀起了激烈的爭辯。有些人認為情人應當為男子的死亡負較大責任，因為她的冷漠延誤了最佳搶救時間；也有人認為男子年事已高且自身健康風險高，死亡更多是不可避免的意外，情人只是法律上的次要責任人。無論如何，此案都凸顯了在突發事件中及時救助的重要性，以及婚外情事件在法律與道德層面上的複雜性。

This case, which occurred in a certain part of China, has attracted wide public attention and controversy. The central figure is a 66-year-old man who unexpectedly died after having sexual intercourse with his mistress in a hotel. According to the subsequent investigation and court records, after the intercourse, the man’s snoring gradually weakened and eventually stopped. The mistress noticed this change, believed the man had already died, but did not call emergency services or attempt any form of first aid. Instead, she chose to leave the scene.

In her court testimony, the mistress stated that she was still half-asleep at the time, had never encountered such a situation before, and did not know how to respond. She chose to go home and take her blood pressure medicine. This statement sparked public outrage, with many criticizing her behavior as cold and lacking even the most basic sense of emergency rescue responsibility.

After the man’s death, his wife and children learned of the incident and sued the mistress, demanding 550,000 RMB in compensation. They argued that she was aware of the man’s abnormal condition yet failed to act promptly, thereby delaying emergency treatment and contributing to his death.

The court found that although the man’s death was directly related to his age and physical condition, the mistress had indeed failed to take timely rescue measures—such as calling 120 or alerting hotel staff—despite noticing his distress. This omission constituted fault and bore a certain causal connection to the man’s death. The court therefore ruled that the mistress must bear part of the civil compensation liability.

The main point of contention in this case lies in whether the mistress had a legal duty to rescue and whether her inaction constituted legal fault. Under China’s current Civil Code, when someone’s life is in danger, those with the ability to assist are obliged to take reasonable rescue measures; otherwise, they may bear corresponding civil liability. While the court’s judgment had a legal basis, it also triggered debate over the boundary between moral and legal responsibility.

The incident, involving both extramarital relations and questions of morality, also touches on the determination of legal obligations in emergency situations. Public opinion remains divided: some believe the mistress should bear significant responsibility for the man’s death, as her inaction delayed the best rescue opportunity; others argue the man’s advanced age and preexisting health risks made his death largely unavoidable, with the mistress only holding secondary legal responsibility. Regardless, the case highlights the importance of timely intervention in emergencies and the complex intersection of law and morality in extramarital affairs.