在中國一間網吧內，一名男子突發疾病，雖然當時工作人員發現異常，但僅口頭勸說他就醫，並未採取任何實質措施，最終該男子不幸猝死。法院審理後裁定網吧需賠償40萬元人民幣。這項判決引起不少爭議，許多人質疑：「人又不是網吧害死的，為什麼要賠？」然而，這背後實際涉及的是中國法律中對於「公共場所安全保障義務」的明確規定，而本案中網吧在履行這項義務上明顯不足。

根據中國法律，賓館、商場、銀行、車站、網吧等公共場所的管理者，對進入場域的民眾須承擔一定程度的保護責任。這種責任並非無限責任，但至少應當做到三點：當場所有潛在危險時需及時提示；遇突發情況時應做出合理救助行為；對可預見風險應提前設置防範機制，例如裝設監控與安排安保人員。一旦這些應盡之責未被履行，並導致他人受傷甚至死亡，管理方就需承擔相應賠償責任。

本案中，法院認定網吧最大失誤在於，雖然員工發現男子臉色蒼白、呻吟不適，卻僅僅說句「你要不要去醫院？」，在男子拒絕後便未再採取任何措施。然而，發病者可能因意識模糊，根本無法準確評估自身狀況，因此單純依賴其主觀反應並不合理。網吧作為公共經營場所，有更高的風險評估義務與應變責任。

正確的做法應是，在男子明顯出現病徵時，立刻中止其上網服務，勸離現場或強制協助就醫。若情況惡化如出現昏迷、抽搐等跡象，則應立即撥打120報警送醫。此外，也需透過監控畫面或其他方式留存相關救助行為的證據，以備事後自證盡責。而網吧的放任態度，在法律認定上即構成對死亡風險的放縱，從而被裁定須對後果承擔次要責任。

至於為何判賠40萬元，這是根據責任比例計算。法院認定死者本人對事件負主要責任，因為他明知身體不適卻拒絕就醫。網吧雖為次要責任，但其未盡合理救助義務，仍需負約20%至30%的賠償比例。具體金額則根據死者年齡、家庭狀況、丧葬費、撫養費與精神損害賠償等項目綜合評定。如果網吧當時完全未採取勸阻措施，賠償額可能更高；反之，若及時聯絡急救機構，甚至可能完全免責。

此判決對各類經營場所釋出一個清晰訊號：不能再對顧客的危險狀況「睜一眼閉一眼」。面對醉酒、突發疾病等異常情況，僅僅口頭問問遠遠不夠，經營方需有實際行動，像是通知家屬、報警、協助送醫等。此外，相關從業人員應接受基本急救常識訓練，以便在緊急時刻作出正確應對，而不是任由事態惡化。更重要的是，所有現場處置過程最好能有監控記錄作為事後證據，以免陷入無法自證盡責的困境。

對普通人而言，有人也許覺得「網吧冤枉」，但這起判決的核心邏輯在於：公共場域的經營者，其本質上就比普通人擁有更強的風險控制能力，因此法律也要求其承擔更高的注意義務。這樣的法律設計，既是為了促進商家履行保護責任，也為了從制度面減少此類悲劇再次發生。

下次若在網吧、商場或旅館看到有人暈倒，不妨主動幫忙叫救護車。這不只是對他人性命的尊重，也是在保護自己免於陷入類似法律糾紛。畢竟，少一次旁觀，多一分行動，或許就能挽回一條生命。

Why was an internet café ordered to pay 400,000 RMB? — Understanding Public Venue Liability Through a “Sudden Death” Case

In a Chinese internet café, a man suddenly fell ill. Although staff noticed his condition, they merely verbally suggested he seek medical attention and took no further action. The man ultimately died of sudden cardiac arrest. After reviewing the case, the court ordered the internet café to pay 400,000 RMB in compensation. This ruling sparked public debate, with many questioning, “The café didn’t kill him—why should they pay?” However, the case hinges on a crucial aspect of Chinese law: the strict requirement for public venues to uphold their “duty of care.” In this instance, the café’s response was deemed clearly insufficient.

Under Chinese law, operators of public venues—such as hotels, shopping malls, banks, train stations, and internet cafés—have a legal obligation to protect patrons on their premises. This responsibility isn’t limitless, but it does include several basic duties: issuing warnings when danger is present (e.g., placing caution signs on slippery floors), responding appropriately to emergencies (e.g., calling an ambulance if someone faints), and implementing preventive safety measures (e.g., security personnel, surveillance). If a venue fails to meet these expectations and injury or death occurs as a result, it may be held legally and financially liable.

In this particular case, the court determined that the internet café’s main failure was not taking sufficient action despite observing clear signs of medical distress. When staff noticed the man was pale and groaning in pain, they simply asked, “Do you want to go to the hospital?” After the man declined, they did nothing further. This response was deemed inadequate, as someone experiencing a medical emergency may not be in a rational state to make such a decision. The café should not have relied solely on his refusal.

The proper course of action would have been to suspend the man’s internet access and require him to leave if he appeared unwell, or, if his condition was serious—such as signs of unconsciousness or convulsions—the staff should have called emergency services immediately. Additionally, evidence of any response—such as security footage—should have been preserved to demonstrate due diligence. The court ruled that by failing to act, the café effectively increased the man’s risk of death and thus bore partial responsibility.

Why 400,000 RMB? This amount is based on a proportional assessment of liability. The court held the man himself primarily responsible, since he refused medical treatment despite being clearly unwell. However, the café was assigned secondary liability—about 20% to 30%—due to its failure to provide adequate assistance. The compensation was likely calculated based on factors such as the man’s age, funeral expenses, living expenses for dependents, and emotional damages. Had the café not even attempted verbal intervention, the damages could have exceeded 600,000 RMB; conversely, if they had called an ambulance promptly, they might have avoided any liability.

This ruling sends a clear message to business operators: do not turn a blind eye to customers in distress. When someone is visibly intoxicated or experiencing a medical emergency, it is not enough to simply ask a few questions—you must take action, whether by calling family members, contacting emergency services, or arranging transportation. Employee training is crucial: staff, including security personnel and servers, should have basic first-aid knowledge and know when to call an ambulance. Most importantly, all actions should be recorded whenever possible—without clear evidence of intervention, courts are likely to find fault with the business.

To the general public, some may view the café as a scapegoat, but the underlying legal principle is this: public venue managers have a greater capacity to identify and respond to risks, and therefore bear a higher duty of care. This legal standard not only encourages responsible management but also helps prevent future tragedies.

So next time you witness someone collapsing in an internet café, mall, or hotel—don’t just stand by. Call an ambulance. You might save a life, and you could also help avoid legal trouble for yourself or others. Sometimes, a small action makes all the difference.