A woman in Shaanxi province died after falling from a seventh-floor window in the early morning hours following a night of heavy drinking with friends. Her family sued the hotel for more than 500,000 yuan in compensation, but a court ruled the hotel bore only partial responsibility.

The court found the hotel had dual faults, including inadequate facilities and negligent management, and ordered it to pay over 110,000 yuan. The deceased was identified as Zheng, who was found to bear primary responsibility for her own death.

According to the second-instance judgment published by the Hanzhong Intermediate People's Court, the incident occurred on November 29, 2025. Zheng, 47, had dinner with friends at a hotpot restaurant, consuming baijiu, before moving on to a KTV where she also drank beer.

Around 10 p.m., after the singing session ended, several friends escorted Zheng to a hotel. Upon check-in, she was uncooperative and had to be helped to the lobby lounge. After resting for about 20 minutes, five friends accompanied her to room 809 to calm and care for her.

At approximately 12:30 a.m., most of her companions left, leaving one friend, Zhang, to stay with her. Around 1:20 a.m., Zheng suddenly ran out of the room barefoot. Surveillance footage showed her entering the elevator hall on the eighth floor but not waiting, instead heading to the stairwell.

She first went down to the seventh floor, then returned to the eighth, then climbed to the ninth and attempted to open the door leading to the rooftop. Failing to open it, she returned briefly before descending to the seventh floor. She was never seen again on camera.

Zhang contacted other friends, and together with hotel security, they searched the premises. By 4 a.m., no trace of Zheng was found. Her friends left, and Zhang returned to room 809 to sleep. At 8 a.m. the next morning, a cleaner discovered Zheng's body on the fourth-floor platform.

Police found bare footprints on the seventh-floor fire escape windowsill that matched the deceased's footprints. They concluded Zheng died from a high fall and that no criminal offense had occurred.

Zheng's parents and adult son reached a separate settlement with those who had been drinking with her, receiving partial compensation. However, negotiations with the hotel company failed, leading them to file a lawsuit demanding over 500,000 yuan in damages.

The first-instance court determined that Zheng, as a fully competent adult, bore primary responsibility for her own safety. The court noted she should have anticipated the risks of reduced cognition and behavioral control from alcohol consumption. Her voluntary climbing and falling from the window were deemed her own fault.

However, the court also found the hotel failed to fully fulfill its safety obligations. The hotel's negligence was deemed to have a legal causal relationship with Zheng's death. Compensation was set at 10 percent of the total losses, which were calculated at approximately 1.18 million yuan.

The hotel was ordered to pay Zheng's parents and son 117,624.85 yuan. The hotel appealed, arguing errors in fact-finding, but the second-instance court upheld the original judgment.

The appellate court noted that Zheng's abnormal behavior involved multiple trips through the stairwells at night. Because there were no surveillance cameras on the sixth and seventh floors, both hotel staff and Zheng's companions could not track her movements during a multi-hour search.

This made it impossible to promptly identify danger and provide rescue, delaying critical response and missing the opportunity to save her. The court also criticized the hotel for failing to call police, notify family members, or expand search efforts even after it was clear the guest was in a dangerous state.

The court concluded the hotel had both static facility defects and dynamic management failures. While these faults were not the direct cause of the fall, they blocked the possibility of avoiding danger and providing timely assistance. They were deemed secondary and indirect causes of the damage.

The court stated the first-instance ruling had properly weighed Zheng's primary fault and determined the 10 percent liability share was fair and reasonable. The appeal was dismissed in early September.