Recently, the malicious injury incident at Tangshan BBQ has aroused widespread concern. The brutality of the suspect's behavior makes people angry. After the incident, netizens strongly condemned the suspect and actively provided clues for the public security organs. It can be seen that everyone hopes that the suspect in this case will be punished by the law, and everyone has a good starting point. However, there are also a few people who transfer their anger to the barbecue shop owner.

A few days ago, the owner of the barbecue shop released a video in which she and the barbecue shop were exposed to online violence due to this case. Some netizens called her and the barbecue shop and sent WeChat messages to abuse her.

So, is there anything wrong with the boss of the barbecue shop in this case?

1、 Barbecue shop owners, as operators, have safety and security obligations

According to Article 198 of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China: "Operators, managers, or organizers of mass activities in business or public places such as hotels, shopping malls, banks, stations, airports, stadiums, and entertainment venues, who fail to fulfill their safety and security obligations and cause damage to others, shall bear tort liability. If damage is caused to others due to the actions of a third party, the third party shall bear tort liability. If operators, managers, or organizers fail to fulfill their safety and security obligations, they shall bear tort liability." Corresponding supplementary responsibilities. "After undertaking supplementary responsibilities, the operator, manager, or organizer may seek compensation from a third party."

The second paragraph of Article 18 of the Law of the People's Republic of China on the Protection of Consumer Rights and Interests stipulates: "Operators of business premises such as hotels, shopping malls, restaurants, banks, airports, stations, ports, theaters, etc. shall fulfill their safety and security obligations to consumers."
In this case, the owner of the barbecue restaurant is not the direct perpetrator, but as a restaurant operator, she has the obligation to ensure the safety of the dining personnel according to the above regulations. If she fulfills her safety and security obligations, she does not have to bear legal responsibility; If the safety and security obligations are not fulfilled, it is necessary to assume supplementary responsibility for the victim according to the degree of their fault. The so-called supplementary liability refers to the fact that when the direct infringer has insufficient or unable to compensate, the operator assumes supplementary liability in proportion to its fault and the causal force of the infringement result.

2、 What are the safety and security obligations of a barbecue shop owner?

Based on the above analysis, it can be seen that whether the owner of a barbecue shop assumes responsibility depends on whether he or she fulfills his or her safety and security obligations. So what are the safety and security obligations of barbecue shop owners?

According to the "Understanding and Application of the Tort Liability Code of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China" compiled by the Leading Group for the Implementation of the Civil Code of the Supreme Court, judging whether the subject of security obligations has fulfilled the security obligations can be grasped from the following four aspects: First, legal standards: If laws and regulations have direct provisions on the content of security, the law The provisions of the regulations serve as the criteria and basis for judgment. Second, industry standards: In the absence of clear provisions in laws and regulations, safety and security obligations should meet the usual duty of care that should be met in the same industry. To achieve a degree that matches their professional management capabilities. For example, property management companies remove potential fire safety hazards around the property, and amusement park operators provide professional maintenance for amusement facilities and special equipment. Third, contract standards: If a contract stipulates that one party has the obligation to provide security to the other party, the security obligation also originates from the contract. Therefore, the criteria agreed upon in the contract are also a basis for judging whether the security obligor has fulfilled its corresponding obligations. Fourth, the standard of good managers.

Returning to the owner of the barbecue shop in this case, first of all, there are no specific regulations and industry standards for the safety assurance content of places such as barbecue shops in China at present; Secondly, from the perspective of contract standards, the relationship between a barbecue shop as a restaurant and its dining personnel should belong to a catering service contract relationship, and the safety obligations required by the barbecue shop owner in this type of contract relationship should also mainly originate from the guarantee of environmental safety and food safety in the shop. Finally, the criteria for a good manager, specifically in this case, need to be judged in conjunction with whether the barbecue shop maintains on-site order, pulls racks, calls the police, and provides timely assistance after the victim is injured.
For example, In the (2019) Xiang 01 Min Zhong No. 291 Civil Judgment, the Changsha Intermediate People's Court of Hunan Province held that: "The focus of the dispute in this case is whether the restaurant has fulfilled its safety and security obligations. In this case, the restaurant operator Xie An dissuaded when the first fight occurred, effectively preventing the expansion of the situation. Peng Zhihui and others were also prepared to leave the restaurant under Xie An's persuasion. Deng Jie was injured and killed when he arrived at the restaurant with a beer bottle after receiving a phone call from Liu Zhilong and fought with others. Afterwards, Xie An also called the police. From the dispute In the process, Xie An, as an operator, has tried his best to dissuade him and reported to the police afterwards. However, Deng Jie's death due to being stabbed in the chest by a third person with a fruit knife while holding a beer bottle during the fight has exceeded Xie An's reasonable security obligations as a general operator, and there is no evidence to prove that the clubhouse restaurant was at fault for the consequences. Therefore, the tort liability against Deng Jie should be borne by the third person. "The court of first instance held that there was no legal causal relationship between the Huiyou Restaurant and the consequences of Deng Jie's death, and that the Huiyou Restaurant did not constitute an infringement on Deng Jianqing and Liu Yuhua, which was correct and upheld by this court."

3、 Analysis on Whether Barbecue Shop Owners Fulfill Safety Guarantee Obligations and Their Responsibilities

In this case, according to the monitoring video content circulating on the Internet, the owner of the barbecue shop has installed monitoring in the shop. The monitoring video can record the course of the crime, help the police to locate the suspect, and the boss does discourage the perpetrators in the shop; According to the video released by her, she also asked others to call the police at the time of the crime. If the above information is verified by the police after investigation, then in combination with the above regulations and cases, at least in the store, the boss has fulfilled his safety and security obligations.

However, when the perpetrator dragged the victim outside the store to continue the murder in this case, it can be seen from the monitoring video content currently circulating online that the boss did not continue to dissuade him.

If the owner of a barbecue shop simply stops persuading the victim because the perpetrator has committed an act outside the shop, then because the beatings of the victim are continuous, the space for the barbecue shop to assume security obligations also extends from the inside of the shop to the outside of the shop. Therefore, the safety and security obligations of the owner of a barbecue shop do not terminate when the perpetrators and victims leave the shop. Therefore, in this case, when the perpetrator continues to perpetrate violence outside the restaurant, the owner of the barbecue restaurant fails to fulfill his safety and security obligations to a certain extent, and has a certain amount of fault for the victim's personal damage, which may require additional responsibility for the victim.

However, if the owner of a barbecue shop has already been threatened by the perpetrator when dissuading her in the shop, it is unreasonable and unrealistic for her, as an ordinary person, to ask her to continue to dissuade or take measures. Under such circumstances, the owner of the barbecue shop has already engaged in dissuasion and alerting the police, which can be said to have exhausted the means of safety assurance. From legal to emotional reasons, it should no longer be required to bear relevant responsibilities.

Finally, where the Internet is illegal, our society is a society ruled by law. We understand everyone's anger over this incident, but the barbecue shop owner is not a perpetrator after all. Even according to the final investigation, the barbecue shop owner did not fulfill his safety and security obligations, and has a certain amount of responsibility for mistakes. Implementing online violence against the barbecue shop owner does not allow the victim to obtain compensation, but also infringes on the legitimate rights and interests of others. Therefore, we hope that everyone can speak rationally. After all, only by resolving this case according to law can the injured be treated fairly.