Chinanews client, Beijing, January 16th (Reporter Song Yusheng) Recently, a news that "a girl imitated "Bear Infestation" fell to death, and a cartoon production company was sentenced to compensation of 66,000 yuan" circulated on the Internet.
Many netizens said that it is difficult to understand: If something happens to children imitating cartoons, should cartoon production companies be held responsible?
After consulting the civil ruling related to this case, the reporter found that the actual situation was different from the rumors.
"Bear infestation" poster
Falling to death while playing
Let's first look at the fact that the girl died.
According to the facts found in the civil judgment of the first instance of the case, the crash occurred on the morning of July 26, 2018.
The parents of the deceased said that Du (8 years old) and Ding (6 years old) were playing at home that day.
In addition to two children, Du's mother, Huang, is also at home.
At around 12 o'clock that day, Du imitated the plot of Xiong Da and Xiong Er in the "Bear Infestation" cartoon, tying ropes on their bodies and jumping down, tied them with ropes and played rock climbing games.
Ding later described the situation like this: "We felt bored and wanted to imitate the plot in the cartoon, so we found some rope in Du's house, and then tied the rope to Du's body."
As a result, Du fell from the window of his home and was injured and was immediately sent to Dujiangyan City People's Hospital for treatment.
But the child died on July 29, 2018.
What needs to be explained here is that although Huang, the mother of the deceased Du, was at home at the time, the court determined that she was mentally disabled, with a second-level disability and no cognitive ability.
Therefore, legally speaking, Huang has no guardianship capacity.
It is worth noting that there is still a controversial detail in the crash.
Du's parents argued in the subsequent trial that Du's fall was caused by Ding's push.
Du's explanation of the situation during the rescue in the hospital also showed that Ding pushed and pushed him to fall.
But this is only a unilateral statement.
Taking into account that Du was dying after falling from the building; when the video was recorded, it was not certain whether his thinking was normal, and the questioning was inductive, the court did not accept the relevant video materials.
"Bear Infested" stills
The case was sent back for retrial
In the year of the incident, Du's parents took Ding (6 years old) and Fang Huaqiang Fangte (Shenzhen) Animation Co., Ltd., who were playing together that day, to court.
The reason was that "Du was accidentally dropped from the window of his home because he was pushed and shoved by Ding." At the same time, playing was "a game that imitated the cartoon'bear infestation'".
In 2019, the People's Court of Dujiangyan City, Sichuan Province made a judgment: Du's guardian, the plaintiff in this case, should bear the main responsibility.
The court also pointed out that “in this case, the deceased Du was only 8 years old, his parents were physically disabled, and his father made a living by working part-time. In this type of family, the children were negligent in the care of their parents and lacked the cartoons shown on TV. A correct understanding can easily lead to tragedy. According to the force that caused Du's death in this incident, the court determined that it is appropriate for the two plaintiffs to bear 80% of the liability and the two defendants to bear 10% of the liability." The two defendants should be separated. The compensation was paid 66387.55 yuan.
But the case is not over.
The two defendants refused to accept the judgment and appealed to the Chengdu Intermediate People's Court of Sichuan Province.
The Chengdu Intermediate People's Court subsequently revoked the judgment of the Dujiangyan City People's Court and sent it back for retrial.
The reason is that "As a person with no capacity for civil conduct, his guardian should be added as a joint defendant in the lawsuit."
During the retrial, the Dujiangyan City People's Court added two defendants to participate in the lawsuit, who were Ding's parents.
In this trial, the plaintiff withdrew the lawsuit against Huaqiang Fangte Company on the grounds of reaching an out-of-court settlement with Huaqiang Fangte Company, and the court allowed it according to law.
However, in the judgment, the court still determined the liability of Huaqiang Fangte Company in this case.
The court held that although some of the dangerous plots and pictures in the "Bear Infestation" produced by Huaqiang Fangte Company had warning text prompts, the warning method was not enough to serve as a warning to young children watching cartoons. Huaqiang Fangte Company Failure to fulfill due diligence and fault for the fact of damage shall bear corresponding tort liability.
The specific liability ratio is that the parents of the deceased Du bear 80% of the responsibility, Ding and his parents who played together bear 10%, and Huaqiang Fangte Company bears 10% of the responsibility.
Since the plaintiff had settled with Huaqiang Fangte Company out of court, although the judgment clarified its responsibilities, it did not ask for compensation. Only Ding and his parents were judged to pay the plaintiff 74487.55 yuan for personal damage.
Ding and his parents subsequently appealed to the Chengdu Intermediate People's Court of Sichuan Province.
In 2020, the court made a final judgment, rejected the appeal and upheld the original judgment.
"Bear Infested" stills
Is the cartoon "back the pot"?
After reviewing the court’s judgment, the reporter found that the facts and online rumors actually deviated.
First of all, the cartoon production company has not been "sentenced to compensate 66,000 yuan."
This is because Huaqiang Fangte Company has settled with Du's parents out of court.
In addition, the verdict showed that the cartoon production company only assumed 10% of the liability.
Throughout the case, several court decisions made it clear: The parents of the deceased should bear 80% of the responsibility.
The final judgment stated that in this case, Du was at least 8 years old and Ding was at least 6 years old, both of whom were persons with no or limited capacity for civil conduct, and their tort liability should be borne by their guardians. As the legal guardians of the two young children, they should be considered for playing. The behavioral ability corresponding to the age, fulfill the guardianship responsibility.
The place of the incident was in Du's home. As the guardian of the person with limited capacity, the first instance found that Du's parents were responsible for 80% of the responsibility, which was not inappropriate.
At the same time, the court also considered that compared with Ding (6 years old), the two young children Du (8 years old) in the case were more aware of the danger of climbing up the window to play and play, which would cause damage. The damage played a relatively large role, and his fault liability was greater than Ding.
Ding is a person with no capacity for civil conduct, and Ding’s parents are liable for inadequate guardianship. The court ruled that he should bear 10% of the compensation liability.
It can be seen that in this crash case, the cartoon production company did not assume the main responsibility.
Of course, considering the child's ability to imitate, relevant works should be warned.
The court judgment revealed that some dangerous plots and pictures in the "Bear Infested" work had warning text prompts, "but the warning method is not enough to serve as a warning to young children watching cartoons."
Many netizens feel that parents should reflect on themselves and judge some to be harsh on the cartoon producers; some also believe that cartoons are only reminded by text, and they have not fulfilled the obligation of reminding illiterate children.
But if you consider Du’s family environment—the mother at home is mentally disabled, and his father lives by working, we should pay more attention to how to avoid such tragedies.
(Finish)