A Changsha man died suddenly after meeting a friend to play mahjong. His companions do not need to bear responsibility.

Playing mahjong is a very common recreational activity, but some people become addicted to it and even play it all day and all night. Due to long-term sitting and inactivity, coupled with the fact that the brain is particularly excited when playing and is always in a state of excitement, danger can easily occur. The sudden death of a man playing mahjong is not an isolated case, and many such cases have happened around me.

A man from Changsha invited friends to play mahjong in a hotel room.

A man in Changsha particularly likes playing mahjong and often gathers with fellow mahjong players to play mahjong. One day, he played mahjong with his friends in a hotel. He became more and more addicted to playing mahjong, and ended up playing all night long.

At around 7 o'clock the next morning, a few people left the venue. They each left to do their own things, and the man also left. However, a few hours after he left, something unexpected happened.

The man died suddenly after playing mahjong in the hotel.

These people only left after having fun, because they often played like this before, and there were never any accidents. But this time something unexpected happened. A few hours after the man returned, he suddenly felt uncomfortable and was immediately sent to the hospital for rescue. However, in the end, he was unable to save his life and died without treatment.

It was very difficult for his family to accept the man's sudden death. They believed that the man's death was related to several people playing mahjong in the hotel. These people who played mahjong with him should be held responsible for this man's death. Bear corresponding responsibility for the man's death.

Do fellow travelers need to take responsibility?

So the man’s family took the three people who played mahjong with the man to court and demanded that they bear compensation, which amounted to nearly 300,000 yuan a day. After the trial and investigation of this case, the court finally ruled that the three people were not at fault and did not bear responsibility. Because the man's behavior was voluntary and had nothing to do with other people, the family's appeal was rejected.