Despite warning, the customer slipped and fell, the restaurant was still fined 1.5 billion VND

Despite warnings, the customer slipped and fell, the restaurant was still fined 1.5 billion VND - Photo 1.

A slippery warning sign on the path - Photo (illustration): RAKUTEN

The story raises the question: is a warning sign enough to protect a restaurant from liability?

Whose responsibility is it?

According to The Paper (China), in August 2023, Ms. Li went to dine at a restaurant in Changning district, Shanghai city (China).

In the hallway leading to the food area, the restaurant placed a black-background, white-lettered warning sign that read “Caution Slippery.” However, the presence of the sign did not prevent the accident from happening.

According to images from the surveillance camera system, at around 12 noon that day, Ms. Ly walked through the hallway to get food and entered the food counter area.

Just 10 seconds later, a restaurant employee used a wet mop to drag along the same walkway. Eight seconds later, when returning to the food area through the same hallway, Ms. Ly slipped and fell on the same floor she had just mopped.

That same day, she was taken to the hospital by ambulance 120, where doctors diagnosed her with a fractured patella in her right knee. Treatment included a surgical fixation with a wire, and several follow-up visits that lasted until August 2024, when she was removed from the medical device.

Believing that the restaurant had failed to ensure safety, Ms. Li sued the restaurant operator, demanding compensation totaling 80,000 yuan (about 2.7 billion VND).

She argued that the floor became dangerous after being wet mopped without any additional warning signs or other form of clear reminder. The mere posting of a general warning sign beforehand was insufficient and did not satisfy the restaurant’s obligation to adequately warn.

Warning does not mean release from responsibility

The restaurant operator argued that there were clear signs posted, and that Ms. Li was the one who was not paying attention while walking, so she should take responsibility. However, the Shanghai Changning District People's Court had a different opinion.

According to the ruling on the case, reported by The Paper on April 10, the law stipulates that restaurants have an obligation to ensure the safety of their customers. In this case, the presence of a general warning sign in advance is not enough to absolve them of liability.

The court found that when Ms. Li first walked through the hallway, the floor was dry. However, after the employee mopped the floor with a wet mop, there was no additional warning, making the floor dangerous without the customer being warned in time. The fall occurred just seconds later, in the same hallway that had just been mopped.

Therefore, the court determined that the restaurant operator had failed to fully perform his duty to warn, leading directly to the accident.

However, Ms. Ly herself was partly responsible for not paying attention to the floor while walking. The court considered the degree of fault of both parties and the reasonableness of the lawsuit request to make a judgment.

As a result, the court ordered the restaurant to compensate Ms. Li for medical expenses, loss of income, care and nutrition fees, etc., totaling 44,000 yuan (about 1.5 billion VND). Neither the plaintiff nor the defendant appealed after the first instance judgment.