The case: A catering enterprise took out a public liability insurance policy with an insurance company, which stipulated that during the insurance period, the insured would be liable to pay compensation according to the terms of the contract for the financial compensation that should be borne by the insured for the personal injury or death and property damage of the third party caused by the accidents in the operation of the business of the insured within the scope specified in the schedule of the insurance policy. On a certain day during the insurance period, a customer was in the restroom during a meal at the catering business, and because the floor had just been cleaned, the customer accidentally slipped and fell, incurring a number of medical expenses. The customer filed a claim for $10,000 with the catering business, and the catering business paid the claim. After the catering business to the insurer to file a claim. Analysis: First, the case of the catering business for the customer injury should bear the responsibility of financial compensation 1. Operators for consumers of personal and property safety has the obligation to ensure the safety of the "Protection of Consumer Rights and Interests Act", Article 7 provides: "Consumers in the purchase of goods and services enjoy the right not to suffer damage to their person and property. Consumers have the right to demand that the goods and services provided by operators conform to the requirements for safeguarding the safety of persons and property"; and Article 18 stipulates that: operators shall ensure that the products or services provided by them conform to the requirements for safeguarding the safety of persons and property, and shall provide consumers with truthful descriptions and clear explanations of the goods and services that may jeopardize the safety of persons and property. The above two articles from the legal point of view of the operator of the safety obligations undertaken by the consumer, but did not specify the scope of the operator for the safety obligations of consumers, in turn, that is, in what circumstances can be recognized as a violation of the safety obligations of the operator for the consumer. The supreme people's court on the trial of personal injury compensation cases on a number of issues of interpretation (hereinafter referred to as "interpretation") article 6: engaged in lodging, catering, entertainment and other business activities or other social activities of natural persons, legal persons, other organizations, failed to do the reasonable limits of the security obligations caused by others to suffer personal injury, the right to compensation for the person to request that it bear the corresponding liability, the people's court shall be supported. The people's court shall support. From the Interpretation of the provisions of the scope of the operator's obligation for the safety of consumers, there should be a "reasonable limit", if the operator does not exhaust the "reasonable limit" within the scope of the obligation for the safety of the operator should be for the consumer suffered personal injury. If the operator fails to fulfill the "reasonable limit", the operator shall be liable for the personal damage suffered by the consumer, if the operator has fulfilled the "reasonable limit" within the scope of the safety and security obligations, the consumer's personal damage, the operator is exempted from liability. 2. How to determine the "reasonable limit" scope of the safety and security obligations of the operator's business involved in all kinds of industries. Various trades and industries, for various trades and industries of operators to develop a unified obligation to protect the safety of consumers reasonable limits of the standard, is difficult. However, in practice, in determining the "reasonable limit" of the operator's obligation to protect safety, but can follow some basic principles. Liu Chao and Zhang Yonghui, in their article "On the Standard of Safety Obligation of the Operator's Premises" (Business Modernization, No. 23, 2008), put forward seven criteria for determining the "reasonable limit of the scope" of the safety obligation of the operator's premise: statutory standard, industry practice standard, rational person standard, foreseeable standard, trust standard, controllability standard and cost-effectiveness standard. Cost-effectiveness standard. With regard to the standard of industrial practice, it is stated that "practice is often used to refer to what people have agreed to do in the course of certain industrial or commercial activities, for example, most stores will place warning signs to remind customers of slippery roads after cleaning the floor"; with regard to the standard of foreseeability, it is stated that "if the defendant could reasonably have foreseen his conduct, it is not necessary for the court to determine the extent to which the defendant's conduct would be reasonable. On the standard of foreseeability, it is suggested that "if the defendant can reasonably foresee that his behavior (action or inaction) will cause loss or damage to the plaintiff, then the defendant is considered to have a duty of care". The author agrees with the above point of view. 3. on the injuries suffered by the customer, the catering business should bear the financial liability as the operator of the catering business, it should be foreseen that the restroom has just been cleaned, when the customer enters to use, it is very easy to be slippery because of the ground and accidents; the ground after cleaning slippery danger, for the catering business is controllable; and in order to prevent slippery ground and take some necessary measures to prevent the customer fall and injury The cost paid is obviously much lower than the cost of the accident that should be borne by the customer after the fall. That is to say, whether from the industry practice standard, foreseeable standard, controllable standard and cost-benefit standard to analyze, catering enterprises to prevent the slippery ground fall customers should be within the scope of the reasonable limit of the obligation to protect safety. The case, from the facts found by the court, the restroom floor cleaning, the cleaner did not take timely measures to eliminate the slippery floor, such as laying non-slip mats on the ground or drying the ground, and did not remind the use of the restroom attention to the slippery floor, such as in the door to place a safety reminder sign or arrange for someone to guard the door. Catering enterprises to do so, its negligence or negligence is obvious, belongs to the customer's safety obligations have not been fulfilled. Therefore, for the customer's injury, should bear the financial liability. Second, the public liability insurance, the insurer should bear the liability as mentioned above, the case, the customer in the use of restroom in the process of slip and fall injury, is the catering business is not within the reasonable limits of the security obligations caused by the catering business according to law for the customer should bear the responsibility of financial compensation. According to the liability insurance contract between the catering company and the insurance company, the insurance liability was established, and the insurance company should bear the liability. Of course, the insurance company in the liability has been determined under the premise, but also to further examine as the insured catering business to pay compensation to the injured customer is the scope of the law should be compensated, and then combined with the agreement of the liability insurance contract to determine the amount of insurance company compensation.

Extended reading: insurance how to buy, which is good, hand to teach you to avoid the insurance of these "pits"