It is a problem faced by many families that children are left unsupervised at home during the holidays. At this time, the trusteeship agency has become the choice of some parents. This is the case at Tongtong’s home in Nantong.
Unexpectedly, the child had an accident the day after he arrived at the care center. Tongtong knocked out four teeth when he went shopping without permission.
Who should be responsible for the resulting losses?
Recently, the Tongzhou District People's Court of Nantong City heard the right to health dispute and gave an answer to this question from the legal level.
Correspondent Shen Gaoxuan
Yangzi Evening News/Ziniu News reporter Wan Chengyuan
An accident happened
On the second day at the care facility, the child knocked out four teeth
In the summer of 2021, because the ten-year-old child was left alone at home, Tongtong's mother (pseudonym) sent Tongtong to a care center for summer school.
Tongtong's mother felt that she could finally go to work this summer.
But it backfired. On the second day after arriving at the care center, Tongtong was accidentally injured.
At noon that day, Tongtong took advantage of the teacher to leave the care center without notice and went to a nearby canteen to buy things. As a result, he accidentally fell on the way back and broke four teeth on the spot.
After identification, all four of Tongtong's damaged teeth need to be repaired with fixed dentures, and they need to be replaced every 12 years.
Tongtong’s mother believed that Tongtong’s fall was caused by the poor care of the trustee center. The two parties failed to negotiate on compensation for the loss. The parents filed a petition and brought the trustee center to court, demanding that the other party compensate Tongtong’s medical expenses and follow-up. The total loss of treatment fees, mental damage consolation funds, and transportation costs is 60,000 yuan.
Court decision
Both parties are responsible, and the custody center bears 80% of the compensation
During the trial, the trusteeship center believed that Tongtong's fall and injury were caused by going out in violation of the regulations. Although the trusteeship center has unavoidable responsibilities, Tongtong himself should also bear part of the responsibility.
After the trial, the Tongzhou Court held that Tongtong's mother sent Tongtong to the childcare center for summer homework counseling, and the two parties formed an entrusted management relationship. In addition to fulfilling the duty of homework counseling for Tongtong, the childcare center was also responsible for his personal safety. duty of care.
However, the care center was neglected, causing Tongtong to leave the care center without authorization and fall and get injured, and should be liable for the damage.
Tongtong had reached the age of ten when the accident occurred, and was a person with limited capacity for civil conduct in the legal sense, and should have certain ability to prevent and control dangerous things.
He left the trusteeship center without authorization, and failed to be careful and pay attention to the road conditions when walking on wet and slippery roads in rainy days, resulting in a fall and injury.
Taking into account the faults of both parties, the court determined that the trusteeship center should be responsible for 80% of the damages to Tongtong, and finally ordered the trusteeship center to compensate Tongtong for a total of 23,000 yuan in losses such as medical expenses, follow-up treatment fees, and transportation expenses.
After the verdict, Tongtong's mother refused to accept the verdict and appealed to the Nantong Intermediate People's Court.
After the trial, the Nantong Intermediate People's Court rejected the appeal and upheld the original judgment.
According to reports, the case has now taken legal effect, and the trusteeship center has fulfilled its obligation of compensation.
According to the undertaking judge, Article 1200 of the Civil Code stipulates that a person with limited capacity for civil conduct suffers personal injury while studying or living in a school or other educational institution. bear liability for infringement.
The court made this judgment after weighing the extent of the faults of both parties, which not only protected the legitimate rights and interests of minors, but also maintained the normal educational order and management order of the educational institution.