【 Case 】 Qi signed a training agreement with a certain cultural company, agreeing that a certain cultural company would conduct Thai boxing training for him. Unless the company had intentional or gross negligence, the consequences of injury during the training should be borne by Qi himself. Before the start of the course, a cultural company temporarily replaced the original Thai boxing coach with a Sanda coach to teach Qi; At the end of the course, the coach arranged for Qi to wrestle with another Thai boxing student, Hao, and did not provide guidance and protection as required. Qi fell to the ground and was injured during the practice, and filed a lawsuit requesting a cultural company and Hao to jointly compensate for his medical expenses and other losses. The trial court held that the exemption clause of the training agreement violated the relevant provisions of the Civil Code and the Consumer Rights Protection Law, and should be deemed invalid. A cultural company was awarded compensation for losses such as Qi's medical expenses. According to the Civil Code of China, the following exemption clauses in a contract are invalid: (1) causing personal injury to the other party; （2） Causing property damage to the other party due to intentional or gross negligence. According to the Consumer Rights Protection Law of China, business operators shall not make unfair and unreasonable provisions to consumers, such as excluding or limiting consumer rights, reducing or exempting business operators' responsibilities, or increasing consumer responsibilities, through standard terms, notices, statements, store notices, etc. They shall not use standard terms and technical means to force transactions. If format clauses, notices, statements, store notices, etc. contain the content listed in the preceding paragraph, their content shall be invalid. A cultural company, as an institution specializing in sports training, should fulfill its obligations of providing professional guidance and safety protection to its students. The sports activity training agreement stipulates that unless the training company has intentional or gross negligence, it shall not assume responsibility. The situation where the training company assumes responsibility is limited to intentional or gross negligence, which belongs to the invalid exemption clause of "causing personal injury to the other party". This agreement is invalid according to law. A certain cultural company advocates the application of the voluntary risk rule stipulated in the Civil Code, which states that "if one voluntarily participates in cultural and sports activities with certain risks and suffers damage due to the actions of other participants, the victim shall not request other participants to bear tort liability; however, unless other participants have intentional or gross negligence in the occurrence of the damage," the trial judge stated that as the organizer of the training activity, A cultural company's defense based on this is not established. At the same time, existing evidence cannot determine that Qi's injury was caused by Qi and Hao's intentional or gross negligence, and neither of them is responsible. The court ruled that a cultural company should compensate Qi for medical expenses and other losses. (New News Agency)