The Ministry of Education recently issued the "Notice on Supporting the Exploration of Summer Daycare Services." In response, the Beijing Municipal Education Commission has directed district education authorities to organize summer daycare programs for students in grades 1-5.While the pilot public summer care program partially addresses childcare challenges during summer break, it remains a relatively new initiative. On one hand, providers must prioritize student safety; on the other, many parents simultaneously seek additional care or educational resources to ensure diverse learning opportunities. But what should be done if personal or property safety is threatened?
Case 1
Fractured Front Tooth from Roughhousing at Daycare
Xiao Mei, a second-grade elementary student, had no one to look after her during summer break because her parents were extremely busy with work.Through a recommendation, Xiao Mei's mother learned about a neighborhood daycare center (with business registration) that supervised homework and provided a play space for children. Its proximity to home and affordable fees satisfied her, so she quickly enrolled Xiao Mei.
One day, Teacher Li took the students outdoors for activities in the neighborhood.The children were playing boisterously. After Teacher Li verbally admonished them, the children did not heed her and continued roughhousing. Xiaoyong, another child in the program, chased Xiaomei. As they ran toward a wall, Xiaoyong shoved Xiaomei, causing her face to collide with the wall and sustain injuries. The next day, Xiaomei went to the hospital for treatment and was diagnosed with a comminuted root fracture of her incisor. She subsequently visited the hospital multiple times for follow-up care.
Xiao Mei's mother sued Xiao Yong and the daycare center in court, demanding they cover Xiao Mei's medical expenses, compensation for emotional distress, and nursing care costs. After deliberation, the court determined Xiao Mei and Xiao Yong each bore 20% responsibility, while the daycare center was held liable for 60%.
Judge's Legal Explanation: Both Students and Daycare Center Share Liability
Yang Jie, a judicial assistant at the Beijing Chaoyang District Court's Asian Games Village Tribunal, explained that Article 7 of the Supreme People's Court's Interpretation on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Personal Injury Compensation Cases stipulates: Schools, kindergartens, or other educational institutions legally obligated to educate, manage, and protect minors shall bear liability commensurate with their degree of fault if they fail to fulfill their duties within their scope of responsibility, resulting in bodily harm to minors or bodily harm caused by minors to others.Article 1199 of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China specifically establishes a presumption of fault liability for educational institutions regarding bodily harm to persons without capacity for civil conduct. If a person without capacity for civil conduct suffers bodily harm while studying or residing in a kindergarten, school, or other educational institution, the kindergarten, school, or other educational institution shall bear tort liability; however, if it can prove that it fulfilled its educational and management duties, it shall not bear tort liability.
In this case, both Xiao Mei and Xiao Yong were persons without capacity for civil conduct at the time of the injury. During their chasing and roughhousing in a public place, Xiao Yong's shoving of Xiao Mei was the direct cause of her incisor fracture.Both students disregarded the teacher's instructions and contributed to the harmful outcome through their actions. Prior to the incident, Xiao Mei and Xiao Yong had engaged in physical contact multiple times. Teacher Xiao Li, as the supervisor, failed to exercise due diligence and promptly intervene. Consequently, the daycare center, as the responsible party, bears primary liability for the harm. Therefore, Xiao Mei and Xiao Yong each bear 20% responsibility, while the daycare center bears 60% responsibility.
Judge's Note: Parental Guidance Also Crucial
As a professional, licensed childcare facility, the center certainly bears the duty to care for and supervise the children in its care. However, in practice, ensuring children's safety at the center cannot rely solely on the staff. Parents must also teach their children in daily life to maintain appropriate boundaries when playing with others and to protect their own safety.
Case Two
Choosing an Unlicensed Daycare Facility
Ms. Zhou operated an unregistered daycare within a residential building, providing lunch, post-meal activities or rest, and charging fees for several elementary school children during holidays. During one summer break, she charged Ms. Chen, mother of 7-year-old Xiao Yu, ¥2,300 for these services.One afternoon, after lunch, Xiao Yu was playing unsupervised downstairs when he accidentally fell and injured himself. He was hospitalized that day and diagnosed with a fracture of the left humeral neck.
Xiao Yu's parents sued Ms. Zhou in court, demanding compensation for medical expenses, hospitalization meal subsidies, nutritional costs, nursing fees, disability compensation, mental distress damages, transportation costs, and appraisal fees.The court accepted the case and ruled that as Xiao Yu's temporary guardian, Ms. Zhou bore the responsibility and obligation to protect his person, property, and other lawful rights and interests. Since Xiao Yu was injured while playing unsupervised, Ms. Zhou failed to fulfill her duty of care and should bear 90% of the liability for compensation. Xiao Yu's guardians also failed to verify the daycare center's qualifications and exercised some negligence in selecting the care provider, thus bearing 10% of the liability.
Judge Explains: Parents Also Bear Liability in Accidents
Yang Jie explained that citizens' rights to life and health are protected by law, and they are entitled to compensation when these rights are infringed. Article 27 of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China stipulates that parents are the guardians of their minor children. Guardians may delegate part or all of their guardianship duties to others.In this case, Xiao Yu was a person without civil capacity. Ms. Chen, Xiao Yu's guardian, entrusted Ms. Zhou to oversee Xiao Yu's lunch, activities, and rest periods. Thus, a delegated guardianship relationship formed between Ms. Chen and Ms. Zhou.
Through this delegation, Ms. Chen transferred part of her guardianship responsibilities to Ms. Zhou for a specific period.As Xiao Yu's temporary guardian, Ms. Zhou bore the obligation to protect his physical safety. Xiao Yu's injury while playing unsupervised indicates Ms. Zhou failed to fulfill her duty of care, making her liable for corresponding responsibility. Ms. Chen, Xiao Yu's guardian, also bears some responsibility for failing to verify the daycare center's qualifications.
Judge Advises Parents to Choose Reputable Institutions Wisely
Given the current mixed quality of educational institutions, many after-school care centers lack proper business licenses. Some are located in residential areas with cramped, rudimentary facilities and inadequate fire safety equipment. The quality of caregivers varies significantly, especially in centers where just one or two teachers are responsible for supervising dozens of children, making it difficult to ensure their safety.
Yang Jie specifically reminds parents that after-school programs are not merely about child supervision; it is essential to choose institutions with strict management and relevant qualifications.
Case Three
Summer Courses Abruptly Halted After Payment
Ms. Wang from Beijing purchased summer training courses for her child at an education institution. After delivering partial sessions, the institution ceased operations due to financial difficulties. Ms. Wang sued the institution, demanding termination of the education contract and a refund of the remaining 20,000 yuan in tuition fees.The court upheld all of Ms. Wang's claims.
Judge's Legal Interpretation: Remaining Fees Can Be Recovered Through Litigation
Yang Jie explained that in this case, Ms. Wang had prepaid the entire tuition—settling all fees before the course concluded.Many educational training or childcare institutions currently promote this prepaid consumption model to parents. Substantial discounts are one reason parents opt for large upfront payments. However, if an institution closes, parents who prepaid suffer greater losses.
In such cases, the legal facts are relatively straightforward and can be resolved through litigation.In prepaid consumption scenarios, it is often the institution's own reasons that prevent the contract from being fulfilled. As the non-fault party, parents or children can request contract termination and demand a refund for the remaining unused portion. Judge Advises Institutions to Purchase Commercial Insurance for Risk Mitigation Yang Jie pointed out that in practice, even legitimate childcare or training institutions may face operational challenges due to various reasons.To protect their legitimate rights, parents should: 1. Gather evidence, including education contracts, payment receipts, and records of completed/uncompleted sessions. 2. Identify the proper plaintiff: If the child is the contract signatory, they must sue as the plaintiff. Parents may act as legal representatives or guardians.Yang Jie suggested that daycare centers or training institutions could deposit a security bond with relevant authorities or purchase commercial insurance. Should a cash flow crisis occur, prepaid funds could be reimbursed to consumers using the deposited bond or through insurance claims.