Summer vacation is upon us once more, bringing a wealth of activities. Yet this period also sees children spending more time unsupervised outside of school. Without adequate parental oversight, potential dangers may arise. To remind parents, schools, society, and minors themselves to take concrete steps in summer safety prevention, the Second Intermediate People's Court conducted a thematic review of recent summer safety cases involving minors and issued the following reminders.
Case 1
Children Drown After Playing Near Reservoir
One summer day, Xiao A and Xiao B suggested swimming at a nearby village reservoir. Their classmate Xiao C (all 13 years old at the time) joined them despite not knowing how to swim.The reservoir dam displayed "No Swimming" warnings but lacked dedicated supervision or safety barriers. Initially playing in shallow waters, Xiao B and Xiao A later swam in deeper areas. While returning to shallow waters, Xiao B playfully wrestled with Xiao C, causing both to accidentally fall into deep water, resulting in Xiao C's drowning.
Following the incident, Xiao C's parents sued Xiao B, Xiao A, and the reservoir's management in court, demanding that the three defendants compensate for losses including death compensation and mental distress damages totaling over 500,000 yuan.The first-instance court determined that the reservoir operator, Xiao B, and Xiao A should bear 50%, 10%, and 10% of the liability respectively. It ordered the legal representatives of Xiao B and Xiao A to jointly compensate over 34,000 yuan for death compensation and mental distress damages, while the reservoir operator was ordered to pay over 170,000 yuan. All three defendants appealed to the Intermediate People's Court.
Court Ruling
The Intermediate People's Court of the Second District determined that Minor B and Minor A, knowing Minor C could not swim, proposed and invited him to swim in the reservoir, indirectly contributing to his drowning death. They bore contributory negligence and were therefore liable for civil damages, with their guardians legally responsible for compensation.The reservoir in question was located near the village without dedicated supervision or safety facilities, posing a potential threat to public safety. The reservoir owner bore management responsibilities and thus also shared civil liability for Xiaoc's death.Although Minor C was a minor, given his age (over 10 years old), he should have been able to recognize the dangers of swimming in the reservoir. Furthermore, his own actions—frolicking in the water with Minor B, which led to him falling into the deep water area—constituted contributory negligence. This contributory negligence may mitigate the liability of the tortfeasor.
Accordingly, the Intermediate People's Court of the Second District dismissed the appeals of the three appellants and upheld the original judgment.
Case 2
Injury at Children's Playground
On a day in July 2016, 6-year-old Child D, with his parents' knowledge, was taken by an adult neighbor to a children's playground in a park along with two other children.While playing, Xiao D fell from an inflatable octopus toy and sustained injuries. The accompanying adult was not providing direct supervision at the time, and no safety barriers or protective measures were observed around the toy. Xiao D was immediately taken to the hospital, where a supracondylar fracture of the left humerus was diagnosed. The following day, Xiao D's parents visited the amusement center to negotiate compensation, recording video footage during the process.As negotiations failed, the parents sued both the commercial operator of the playground and the park, seeking over 30,000 yuan in compensation for medical expenses, nursing fees, and other losses.
Investigation revealed the playground operator had signed a lease agreement with the park, stipulating the park would rent the premises to the operator for a fee. The agreement specified that the operator would bear sole responsibility for any casualties, visitor injuries, or other accidents occurring during its operations, with the park bearing no liability.
The primary court ruled that the amusement center should bear 70% of the liability. Dissatisfied with the ruling, the center appealed to the Intermediate People's Court.
Court Ruling
The Intermediate Court, after deliberation, determined that the evidence presented by Xiao D—including outpatient medical records and video discs—sufficiently established the fact that Xiao D sustained injuries from a fall at the playground.The amusement center failed to submit evidence proving that its octopus-shaped inflatable toy had undergone quality and safety inspections. Children playing and climbing on this toy posed significant safety risks, and no safety barriers or related protective facilities were observed around it. Therefore, the center should bear corresponding tort liability.Given Xiao D's young age, his safety relied on effective supervision by his guardian. The guardian knowingly permitted an adult neighbor to take Xiao D and two other children to the playground without providing adequate supervision. This constituted a failure to fulfill reasonable guardianship duties and constituted negligence. The playground center's liability should therefore be mitigated. Based on the circumstances, the court determined the playground center's liability proportion to be 70%.As existing evidence fails to establish the park's management responsibility toward the play center, the claim that the park should bear tort liability for Xiao D is not supported. The first-instance court's determination of liability proportions based on the facts and evidence is correct. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed, and the original judgment is upheld.
Case Three
Traffic Violation Causing Injury
One summer day, Cheng drove his son Xiao E (age 12) out for recreation. Upon reaching the west gate of a park, Cheng parked by the roadside to use the restroom, leaving Xiao E alone in the vehicle. During this time, Xiao E opened the vehicle's left rear door, striking electric bicycle rider Sun.Sun was hospitalized but remains in a vegetative state despite treatment. Traffic authorities determined that Cheng's illegal parking and Xiao E's door operation obstructing traffic both caused the accident. Cheng and Xiao E were held equally liable, while Sun bore no responsibility.
Sun sued Cheng, Xiao E, and the vehicle's insurance company in court, seeking compensation totaling over 1.7 million yuan for medical expenses, nursing fees, disability compensation, and other losses. The first-instance court ruled that the insurance company should cover Sun's losses within the policy limits, with Cheng and Xiao E jointly and severally liable for any shortfall. Dissatisfied with this ruling, Cheng and Xiao E appealed to the Intermediate People's Court.
Court Ruling
The Intermediate Court determined that both Cheng and Xiao E's unlawful acts had a causal relationship with the traffic accident and were contributing causes. Based on the traffic management department's findings and the case circumstances, the first-instance court correctly assigned 50% liability to each as direct tortfeasors.However, since Xiao E is a person with limited capacity for civil conduct, the portion of compensation he should bear should be assumed by his guardian. Cheng should bear his own liability. The first-instance court erred in determining that Xiao E should bear joint liability for Cheng's portion of the liability. The Second Intermediate Court amended the ruling, holding Cheng liable for the portion of compensation exceeding the insurance coverage limit.
Case Four
Restaurant Dog Bites Girl
During summer vacation, 9-year-old girl Xiao F visited the suburbs with her parents and had lunch at a privately-owned restaurant near the scenic area. While returning from the restroom to the restaurant, Xiao F walked through the restaurant's dog-keeping area and was bitten on the leg by a dog owned by the restaurant proprietor. No warning signs were posted inside the restaurant or near the dog cages.
Xiao F and her legal representative sued the restaurant operator in court, seeking compensation for medical expenses and other losses. The court of first instance ruled that Xiao F's dog bite injury resulted from her parents' inadequate supervision, absolving the restaurant operator of liability. Xiao F appealed this decision to the Intermediate People's Court.
Court Ruling
The Intermediate People's Court of Beijing Municipality held that when an animal causes harm to others, the animal keeper or manager shall bear civil liability. However, if the harm results from the victim's own fault, the keeper or manager shall not be liable. The burden of proof regarding the victim's fault rests with the animal keeper or manager.The dog owned by the restaurant owner bit Xiao F. As both owner and keeper, the restaurant owner should bear corresponding civil liability. The restaurant owner claimed Xiao F. provoked the dog and was bitten, but failed to provide sufficient evidence, which the court did not accept. Additionally, no warning signs were placed inside the restaurant or near the dog cage to reasonably alert others to safety hazards, creating a safety risk.Based on the established facts, the restaurant's dog was not located on the path from the restaurant to the restroom. Young F voluntarily walked down the path into the dog-keeping area and was subsequently bitten. Therefore, Young F's parents, as guardians, failed to fulfill their duty of supervision and protection, and should bear corresponding responsibility for the harm suffered by Young F. Accordingly, the liability of the restaurant operator was reduced.The first-instance ruling that the restaurant operator bore no liability was inappropriate. The court lawfully amended the judgment, ordering the restaurant operator to compensate Xiao F for medical expenses, transportation costs, nutritional expenses, and mental distress compensation totaling over 4,000 yuan.
Case Five
Injury During Transportation
On a July evening in 2016 at 9:00 PM, 16-year-old G was crossing the road from west to east when Wang, driving a sedan north to south, struck G. G was then thrown into an oncoming minivan, whose driver fled the scene.That night, Xiao G was hospitalized with acute severe traumatic brain injury and multiple fractures, later assessed as a Grade 6 disability. Traffic authorities determined Wang bore primary responsibility, Xiao G secondary responsibility, and the fleeing driver secondary responsibility.
Xiao G and his legal representative subsequently sued Wang and the insurance company in court, seeking compensation for various economic losses totaling over 2 million yuan.
The first-instance court ruled Wang liable for 70% of the damages, ordering the insurer to compensate within the compulsory traffic insurance limits and pay the remaining portion proportionate to liability under the commercial third-party liability insurance. Wang appealed the decision to the Intermediate People's Court.
Court Ruling