news

When a parent was watching his child train at a football club, he was hit by a flying football and his right hand was fractured. After the accident, because the person who kicked the football could not be identified, the club also claimed exemption from liability on the grounds that the parent should take the risk. So who should bear the losses caused by the accident?

Recently, the People's Court of Chengzhong District, Liuzhou City, pronounced a verdict on the infringement dispute.The club was found to bear 70% of the responsibility.Parents bear 30% of the responsibility.

Case Details

Wu's grandson signed up for a football training class held by a football club. On November 20, 2022, after Wu sent his grandson to the club for class, he entered the training ground and sat aside to watch. He was accidentally hit in the right hand by a flying football. It was the free time before the football training class. Several students were practicing on the field by themselves, and the coach was preparing the class equipment. It was impossible to confirm who kicked the football in question.On the day of injury, Wu went to the hospital for treatment, where he was diagnosed with a distal fracture of the right radius and ulna.Because he did not receive compensation for his injury, Wu sued his student Qin and a football club in court, requesting compensation for treatment costs, medical expenses and other losses.

Qin argued thatWhen the accident happened, he was practicing football and did not see the process of the accident. The ball that hit Wu was not kicked by him, and he did not know who kicked the ball and hit Wu.

A football club argued thatAs an adult, Wu should have known that there were certain dangers in entering a football training ground. Wu did not pay attention to the situation on the field and was accidentally hit by a football. This was an act of voluntarily taking risks and he should bear the responsibility for the accident.

Court hearing

After the trial, the court held that the evidence submitted by Wu was insufficient to prove the causal relationship between his injury and Qin's kicking, and could not prove that the football in question was kicked by Qin. Qin also did not admit that Wu's injury was caused by his kicking. Therefore, Wu should bear the adverse consequences of failing to provide evidence, and the court did not support his request for Qin to bear compensation liability.

The students who participated in the football training were all minors. As a profit-making organization, a football club has a higher duty of care for safety, and the risks of training activities are more controllable compared to formal competitions. As the user and manager of the football training ground involved in the case, the football club did not set up barriers around the training ground, did not dissuade or stop parents from entering the training ground, and was inadequate in management; it did not arrange coaches to guide the minors to conduct free training, and did not fulfill its safety guarantee obligations, which was a certain fault. When the accident happened, Wu was sitting by the training ground watching the training, and was not a participant in the cultural and sports activities, so the assumption of risk clause did not apply; as the organizer of the football training, the football club was not subject to the assumption of risk clause, and could not be exempted from the safety guarantee obligation.

As a person with full civil capacity, Wu should have known and foreseen the dangers of football activities. In the absence of shielding facilities at the training ground involved in the case, he should have stood at a safe distance to rest or watch. However, Wu entered the training ground where students were practicing football on his own, putting himself in a dangerous environment or occasion, and should bear the corresponding damages.

Taking into account the degree of fault of each party, the court ruled that Wu should bear 30% of the responsibility and the football club should bear 70% of the responsibility, that is, the football club should compensate Wu for the loss of more than 3,900 yuan. After the first-instance judgment, the football club was dissatisfied and filed an appeal. After trial, the Liuzhou Intermediate People's Court ruled: the appeal was rejected and the original judgment was upheld.