In June 2021, A (minor) and friends came to a pet management department, and after paying the relevant fees, they entered the venue to play cats. In the meantime, the cat suddenly scratched Jia's hand, and the staff immediately washed it. The next day, A, accompanied by his parents, went to the hospital for treatment and was injected with rabies vaccine, immune globulin and tetanus vaccine. Later, A's parents approached the merchant to negotiate and asked them to pay the relevant fees. The merchant believed that all the pet cats in the store had been injected with rabies vaccine, and they did not need to be vaccinated again after being scratched, and the pet cat had a docile temperament. There is a stress reaction, and there is no fault for Jia's injury, and there is a notice in the store No responsibility for cat injury. The two parties failed to reach an agreement on compensation, so they sued to the Siyang County Court.

The Siyang County Court held that the pet business department had no evidence to prove that A had intentional or gross negligence, and should be liable for the damage caused by A. And even if the management department has informed the cat risk, under the circumstance that Jia is not at fault, it cannot refuse to assume the responsibility for compensation. Therefore, according to the law, a pet management department was ordered to compensate A for various losses totaling 2,265 yuan.

The judge's statement: The Civil Code stipulates that the principle of no-fault liability shall apply to the damage caused by the breeding of animals, that is, the animal breeder or manager shall bear the burden of proof for the victim's intentional or gross negligence, otherwise he shall bear the burden of proof. adverse consequences. In this case, if the merchant fails to provide evidence to prove that A is at fault, it should bear the corresponding liability for damages. In addition, the announcement in the pet store that if the cat hurts people in the store, is not responsible is a liability exemption clause, exempting the provider from the responsibility, and excluding the main rights of consumers. According to the 490th Civil Code Seven provisions are invalid provisions.