Urgent~~~~~~~~ case analysis, tell me what you think

Should bear liability for compensation. The special feature of this case is that the defendant Wantong Hotel was not the direct infringer of the plaintiff’s personal injury. Of course, the direct infringer should be liable to the plaintiff for compensation for personal injuries. The question is, if the plaintiff cannot request compensation from the direct infringer (for example, the direct infringer cannot be identified or the whereabouts of the direct infringer is unknown), whether he can request Is the defendant Wantong Hotel liable for compensation?

First of all, the plaintiff is a customer who registered accommodation with the defendant. Therefore, an accommodation service contract relationship is formed between them, and the defendant should provide the plaintiff with accommodation conditions of corresponding specifications. The accommodation conditions referred to here should include protecting the personal safety of guests in the hotel. The defendant's installation of security guards in the hotel also proves that it provides services to protect the safety of customers. However, the defendant's security personnel witnessed the plaintiff being beaten for more than 10 minutes in the hotel, but did not stop him. This inaction showed that the defendant did not take corresponding measures to protect the personal safety of customers, and the defendant failed to provide appropriate services, which constituted Breach of contract.

Secondly, as a customer staying in a hotel, the plaintiff is also a consumer receiving services provided by the defendant. The relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant is also between a consumer and an operator. According to Article 7 of the "Consumer Rights and Interests Protection Law": "Consumers have the right to have their personal and property safety not harmed when purchasing and using goods and receiving services." Article 18 stipulates: "Operators shall protect the The goods or services meet the requirements for protecting personal and property safety. "In this case, the defendant's security personnel failed to fulfill their obligations to protect hotel guests in the hotel, causing the plaintiff to suffer personal injuries, which shows that the defendant failed to provide operations that meet the requirements for protecting personal safety. Services that violate the obligations stipulated by law shall bear corresponding legal liability.

The defendant violated both its accommodation contract obligations with the plaintiff and its obligations under the Consumer Rights Protection Law. In this case, the plaintiff can choose one of them as the basis for the claim. The defendant seeks damages.

In addition, the perpetrator who beat the plaintiff and caused physical injury directly violated the plaintiff's right to health, constituted an infringement of the plaintiff's personal rights, and should be liable for damages. The infringer and the defendant have formed an unreal joint and several liability, and both should bear the liability for compensation to the plaintiff. If either party compensates the plaintiff, the other party's liability for compensation will be relieved. In this case, since the identity of the assailant who assaulted the plaintiff in the hotel is unknown, the plaintiff cannot identify the assailant and cannot file a lawsuit against him for compensation. Therefore, the plaintiff can directly sue the defendant Wantong Hotel and demand that it bear liability for compensation.