According to the WeChat official account of the Supreme People's Court, in order to give full play to the role of warning, education and guidance of typical cases, the Supreme People's Court, in combination with the specific situation of the current frequent disputes in the tourism market, released five typical cases of tourism disputes, aiming to guide the scenic spots to regulate management according to law, tourists to safeguard their rights according to law, promote the prevention and resolution of the source of conflicts and disputes, promote safe tourism, civilized tourism, and maintain the healthy development of the tourism market through legal publicity. The typical cases released this time have the following characteristics: firstly, adhering to and developing the "Fengqiao Experience" in the new era, promoting the prevention and resolution of conflicts and disputes at the source. The ecological environment in our country is getting better and better. Many scenic spots often have wild animals, and some have even become tourist hotspots. There is a certain level of danger involved in the interaction between tourists and wild animals. Scenic areas should strengthen management and take necessary preventive measures. Tourists should also enhance their awareness of safety protection, try to avoid animal injury incidents, and jointly maintain a harmonious tourism order. In the case of the health rights dispute between Zhang and the Emei Mountain Management Committee, the Emei Mountain Tourism and Environmental Protection Court received a phone call from Zhang requesting compensation from the Emei Mountain Management Committee for the losses he suffered from being scratched by the wild animal Emei Tibetan macaque in the scenic area. They immediately arrived at the scene for mediation, fully explained the facts of the case, patiently and meticulously handled the work of the parties involved, and promoted both parties to reach a mediation agreement on the spot and fulfill it in practice, effectively resolving the conflict and dispute in a timely manner. At the same time, the Emei Mountain Tourism and Environmental Protection Court has extended its judicial functions in accordance with the law, promoted the Emei Mountain Management Committee to further improve safety measures, formulated the "Interim Measures for the Protection and Management of Terrestrial Wildlife in Emei Mountain Scenic Area and Compensation for Harms", and fully utilized mechanisms such as joint meetings to strengthen regular coordination and cooperation with the Emei Mountain Management Committee. Through joint efforts, the Emei Mountain Scenic Area has achieved "zero lawsuits" in disputes over wildlife injuries for five consecutive years, truly meeting the requirements of a 5A level scenic spot with "no lawsuits". The second is to strengthen the main responsibility of tourism operators in accordance with the law and promote the improvement of tourism service quality. To enhance attractiveness, many scenic spots have set up high-risk tourism projects. Scenic spot managers should provide more comprehensive safety measures for this. If tourists suffer damage due to participating in the project and there is no obvious fault on their part, the scenic spot should bear legal responsibility. In the cases of Zhu Xinxin's lawsuit against a certain tourism company for violating safety guarantee obligations and Hu's lawsuit against a certain tourism company for a tourism contract dispute, the trial court accurately applied the provisions of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China, the Supreme People's Court's Provisions on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Tourism Dispute Cases, and the Supreme People's Court's Interpretation on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Personal Injury Compensation Cases through the examination and judgment of the evidence in the case, and determined that the tourism operator violated the safety guarantee obligations in accordance with the law and should bear the main or all responsibilities. This has positive significance for guiding tourism operators to strengthen their awareness of safety risks, fully fulfill their safety guarantee obligations in accordance with the law, and promote the sustainable and healthy development of cultural and tourism projects. The third is to strictly and fairly apply the law and settle disputes. In recent years, the popularity of niche outdoor sports such as waterfall descent, drifting, river tracing, and jumping into pools has skyrocketed. These projects have high risks, and blindly "checking in" on so-called internet famous routes, especially wild routes, without sufficient preparation and safety protection, can easily lead to dangerous situations. Tourists participating in these projects should raise their safety awareness and pay more attention to safety protection. If tourists enter areas not included in the scenic area without authorization and cause damage to themselves, and the scenic area is not at fault, tourists should bear the risk themselves. In the case of Jiang Mouwei et al. v. a tourism company in Jiangshan City, Zhejiang Province, Xu Mouxian, who is a person with full capacity for civil conduct, entered the scenic area without purchasing a ticket to engage in high-risk river tracing activities. The place where he fell was far away from the normal tourist area of the scenic area, and there were no accessible roads or wild roads. The court did not support his relatives' claim for compensation from the scenic area in accordance with the law. The judgment of this case further clarifies the judgment rule that public area managers who have fulfilled their safety protection obligations shall not be liable for compensation, which helps guide outdoor activity participants to establish the awareness that individuals are the first responsible person for their own safety precautions and strengthen self-protection. The fourth is to deeply practice the concept that green mountains and clear waters are as valuable as mountains of gold and silver, and protect the ecological environment and natural resources in accordance with the law. Tourists have the obligation to protect the ecological environment while enjoying the beautiful scenery in scenic spots. Those who violate regulations and cause damage to the ecological environment should bear legal responsibility. In the case of the People's Procuratorate of Guilin City, Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region, suing Jin and three others for ecological damage civil public interest litigation, Jin and three others have full capacity for civil conduct. While camping on the top of Da Mian Mountain in the core scenic area of the Lijiang Scenic Area, a 5A level national scenic spot, they illegally used fire in the wild, resulting in the destruction of key public welfare forests. Although it did not meet the criminal prosecution standards, it caused considerable damage to ecological environment resources and infringed on social public interests. The people's court ruled in accordance with the law that they should bear corresponding civil liability for the loss of service functions caused by ecological environment restoration and ecological environment damage until the completion of restoration. Typical Cases of Tourism Disputes Adjudicated by People's Courts in Accordance with the Law: Case 1: Health Rights Dispute between Zhang and Emei Mountain Management Committee Case 2: Zhu Xinxin v. A Tourism Company for Violating Safety Protection Obligations Dispute Case 3: Hu v. A Tourism Company for Tourism Contract Dispute Case 4: Jiang et al. v. Operators and Managers of a Tourism Company's Business and Public Places Dispute Case 5: Guilin People's Procuratorate of Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region v. Jin et al. Civil Public Interest Litigation Case 1: Health Rights Dispute between Zhang and Emei Mountain Management Committee [Basic Case] In August 2017, Zhang heard that the monkeys in Emei Mountain were lively and cute, close to people, and came to the Emei Mountain Scenic Area to observe them, ignoring tourists' expectations. Warning requirements for maintaining a safe distance from monkeys, entering monkey gathering areas to play with monkeys Feeding the monkey, accidentally scratched by the monkey. After receiving first aid from the staff of the Emeishan Scenic Area Management Committee (hereinafter referred to as the "Emeishan Management Committee"), Zhang called the tourism dispute hotline of the Emeishan Tourism Environmental Protection Court of the People's Court of Emeishan City, Sichuan Province (hereinafter referred to as the "Emeishan Tourism Environmental Protection Court"), requesting compensation from the Emeishan Management Committee. After receiving the phone call, the staff of the Emei Mountain Tourism Environmental Protection Court quickly arrived at the scene, explained the law and reasoning to both parties, and carried out mediation work. The Emei Mountain Tourism Environmental Protection Court believes that according to Article 37 of the Tort Law of the People's Republic of China (now Article 1198 of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China), operators and managers of public places have the obligation to ensure safety. If they fail to fulfill their safety obligations and cause harm to others, they should bear tort liability. At the same time, the obligation of security should be controlled within reasonable limits. The wild monkeys in the scenic area involved in the case can have relatively free contact with tourists, and the scenic area should assume a higher degree of protection obligation in terms of the personal and property safety of tourists. Although the Emei Mountain Management Committee has set up railings, warning signs, etc., it has not fully fulfilled its safety guarantee obligations. Zhang did not comply with the warning requirements of the scenic area regarding maintaining a safe distance, entered the monkey gathering area to play with and feed the monkeys, and did not fully fulfill the corresponding duty of care. Considering that Zhang only needs to receive the vaccine, which does not constitute a disability level, the Emeishan Management Committee will compensate Zhang with a vaccine fee of 1000 yuan. This case is a typical case of resolving tourism disputes before interpreting the law and explaining the reasons. Scenic area operators and managers should have sufficient foresight into the potential dangers and damages that may occur within the scenic area, fully fulfill their obligations of notification, investigation, notification, reminder, and attention, and ensure that the personal or property safety of tourists is not harmed. Otherwise, they should bear corresponding responsibilities. As the first person responsible for their own safety precautions, tourists should consciously abide by the safety management system after entering the scenic area, travel in a civilized and safe manner, not actively provoke, attack or harm wild animals in the scenic area, and avoid accidents. Otherwise, they should also bear corresponding responsibilities. After properly resolving the dispute in this case, the Emei Mountain Tourism and Environmental Protection Court extended its judicial functions in accordance with the law, promoted the Emei Mountain Management Committee to further improve safety measures, formulated the "Interim Measures for the Protection and Management of Terrestrial Wildlife in Emei Mountain Scenic Area and Compensation for Harm", and fully utilized mechanisms such as joint meetings to strengthen regular coordination and cooperation with the Emei Mountain Management Committee. Through joint efforts, the Emei Mountain Scenic Area has achieved "zero lawsuits" in disputes over wildlife injuries for five consecutive years, truly meeting the requirements of a 5A level scenic spot with "no lawsuits". 2. Case 2: Zhu Mouxin sues a certain tourism company for violating its security obligations and liability dispute case [Basic facts] On May 31, 2020, Zhu Mouxin purchased tickets from a certain tourism company and participated in the "Swing Bridge" project on the same day. During the project, staff from a certain tourism company shook the bridge deck, causing Zhu Xinxin to fall off and get injured. After diagnosis by the hospital, Zhu Mouxin had a comminuted intercondylar fracture of the left humeral condyle and was hospitalized for a total of 13 days. After appraisal, Zhu Mouxin's injury and current sequelae are assessed as Grade 9 disability. Zhu Mouxin filed a lawsuit with the People's Court, requesting that a certain tourism company be ordered to compensate for economic losses such as medical expenses. The People's Court of Dongshan County, Fujian Province, held in the first instance that the "Swing Bridge" project involved is dangerous, and a certain tourism company, as the operator and manager of the "Swing Bridge" project, has a higher degree of safety guarantee obligation to the project participants; Project participants should also fully assess the risks involved in the project and have a higher level of responsibility for their own safety. Although a certain tourism company has set up warning signs indicating the danger of the project and taken protective measures such as wrapping soft rubber to prevent falls and collisions, it has not provided sufficient and effective safety guarantees for participants. Moreover, the staff of the tourism company have excessively shaken the bridge deck and should bear the main responsibility. As a person with full capacity for civil conduct, Zhu Mouxin failed to fulfill the necessary duty of care for her own safety and was also at fault for the accident, so she should bear secondary responsibility. After comprehensive consideration, it is decided that a certain tourism company shall bear 80% of the responsibility for the accident involved in the case, and Zhu Mouxin shall bear 20% of the responsibility for the accident involved in the case. The judgment is that a certain tourism company shall compensate Zhu Mouxin for a total of 299754.34 yuan in economic losses. After the verdict, both Zhu Mouxin and a certain tourism company appealed. The second instance upheld the original verdict. This case is a typical example of a tourism operator assuming responsibility based on the degree of their fault for not fully fulfilling their safety obligations. The "Swing Bridge" involved in the case is a recreational facility where multiple people stand on a suspension bridge and shake the bridge back and forth to achieve an entertainment effect. There is a high possibility of falling or colliding, and it has a certain degree of danger. Its operator has a higher obligation to ensure safety and exercise caution, and should bear a higher responsibility for risk notification and danger prevention and rescue. The people's court adheres to the dual approach of "treating the disease before it occurs" and "preventing the disease before it occurs". In the trial of cases, the responsibility boundaries of relevant parties are clarified in accordance with the law. After the judgment takes effect, judicial suggestions are promptly issued to tourism operators to guide them to increase security personnel in a timely manner, improve project risk descriptions and safety protection measures, and effectively reduce the risk of accidents. This case is a vivid judicial practice of the rule of law safeguarding the high-quality development of the tourism industry, which has reference significance for guiding tourism operators to strengthen their safety guarantee obligations and tourists to enhance their own safety awareness. Case 3: Hu sued a tourism company for a tourism contract dispute