In June 29, Lu Mou and Kang Mou, fifth-grade students of a primary school in Fengxian District, Shanghai, were playing a goat jumping game during recess. When Lu Mou was about to jump over Kang Mou's back, Kang Mou suddenly got up, causing Lu Mou to fall to the ground. According to the report of the students present, Wang, the physical education teacher of the school, immediately rushed to the scene. After checking, Lu did not have any physical injury characteristics and asked about the injury. Lu immediately said that there was no problem, and then the students returned to class. During the class, the Chinese teacher found that Lu was lying on the table shouting that he had a stomachache, so he immediately contacted Lu's father by phone and asked him to pick him up from school and go back to see a doctor. Lumou's father then sent Lumou to the Touqiao Sub-center of Fengcheng Community Health Service Center for medical treatment. After being diagnosed by doctors, there was no obvious abnormality, so he gave Lumou a good medicine and told him to go home to rest. After returning home, Lumou's abdominal pain intensified. In the afternoon, Lumou's parents took him to Fengcheng Hospital in Fengxian District for treatment again. Due to the untimely treatment, Lu's spleen bled heavily and was forced to be removed. Subsequently, Lu and his legal representative took Kang and the school to court, demanding that they bear the same tort liability.

focus of litigation

in the campus injury accident, citizens and legal persons who infringe upon others' right to life and health due to their faults should bear corresponding civil liabilities, but in this case, is the school that has the obligation to educate, manage and protect minors at fault in this infringement dispute? Should we bear the corresponding responsibilities?

Court decision

The court of first instance held that the defendant Kang did not fulfill the obligation of mutual care and ensuring safety during the game, and suddenly got up and stood up, causing the plaintiff to fall, which was obviously a fault and should bear the corresponding fault liability.

In addition, the plaintiff, Lu Mou, was a person with limited capacity at the time of the incident, and he had the ability to recognize and foresee the consequences of his actions according to his age and intelligence, but he ignored the usual safety education in school, which directly led to the occurrence of the result of falling and injuring himself while playing the game of "jumping goats". The plaintiff is at fault and should bear certain responsibilities.

when the defendant's school learned that the plaintiff fell and was injured during class, it had fulfilled the obligations of asking, paying attention to and informing parents, and assisting parents to send the plaintiff to the hospital for treatment. The above rescue measures were timely and appropriate, and there was no fault in education, management and protection. Therefore, based on the fault and damage results of the plaintiff and the defendant, the court decided that the plaintiff should bear 4% of the responsibility and the defendant Kang should bear 6% of the responsibility. After the verdict was pronounced in the first instance, neither party appealed.

case analysis

The imputation principle of student injury accidents in school mainly adopts fault liability, and the tort liability law clearly distinguishes the cases of students without civil capacity, limited capacity and infringement by a third party. For the injury of students without civil capacity, considering the students' weak cognitive and judgment ability, the school should be given more duty of care, and the principle of presumption of fault liability should be adopted; For the injury of students with limited capacity, the principle of fault liability is adopted; Even in the case of infringement by a third party, the premise of the school's supplementary responsibility is that it should be at fault. Therefore, the fault liability of all parties in this case should be identified as follows:

First of all, the defendant Kang should realize that his sudden standing up may cause harm to the plaintiff, but because of the negligence of the defendant Kang, he allowed the danger to happen. It can be seen that the defendant Kang's behavior objectively caused the plaintiff to fall and hurt, and he was subjectively at fault, so he needed to bear the corresponding responsibility for the plaintiff's damage.

Secondly, although the plaintiff's parents were not at fault for the accident in this case, they delayed the plaintiff's treatment, which led to the expansion of the damage, so they were also at fault for the damage and needed to bear certain responsibilities. After the accident, the school promptly informed the plaintiff's father to pick up the plaintiff from the school to see a doctor. The plaintiff's father rushed to the school to take the plaintiff away, and the plaintiff was under his father's guardianship from now on. However, it did not take timely and appropriate rescue measures, which led to the further expansion of the damage. It can be seen that the plaintiff's parents failed to fulfill their guardianship responsibilities, and according to the principle of fault offset, the plaintiff should bear part of the responsibilities on its own.

In addition, we believe that the school has fulfilled its responsibilities of education, management and protection. Because the plaintiff's injury happened accidentally between classes, the school often gave students safety education in normal teaching activities. The concern and inquiry of the PE teacher and the timely notice of the Chinese teacher are enough to show that the school has taken positive measures. The main reason that caused the victims to expand their losses is that their parents did not fulfill their duty of guardianship for this accident, which led to the missed treatment time of the victims. From this causal relationship, the school is not responsible for the expansion of losses.

therefore, in this case, the school did not bear the responsibility for the fault. From the perspective of interest balance and the social effect of case handling, the court finally recognized that the school would voluntarily pay the plaintiff a certain amount of economic compensation, which is more conducive to the resolution of contradictions and disputes and can achieve better social effects. The handling of this case not only conforms to the specific provisions of the Tort Liability Law and related judicial interpretations, but also embodies the unity of legal effects and social effects.