news

한어Русский языкEnglishFrançaisIndonesianSanskrit日本語DeutschPortuguêsΕλληνικάespañolItalianoSuomalainenLatina

a drop of water can refract the sunlight.

one case can demonstrate the principle of rule of law.

the official wechat account of the supreme people's court has launched the column "small cases, big principles, new trends in the times", which takes you to review those shining "small cases", savor the "principles" contained in them, and feel the positive energy of fairness and justice promoted in every judicial case. this issue brings you a case of a teenager drowning in an artificial lake in a park.

a minor drowned while swimming in an artificial lake in a park with a "no swimming" warning sign. his family sued the park manager for 800,000 yuan in compensation. after the first and second trials, the court ruled that the safety guarantee obligations of public welfare parks should be different from those of places engaged in business activities. in the case that the park has set up warning signs, it should be considered that it has fulfilled its warning and reminder obligations, there is no management negligence, and it should not bear compensation liability.

basic facts

during the summer vacation, 14-year-old li and his friends went to the artificial lake in the park to play. li went to the lake to swim without permission and accidentally drowned. his friends called for help but to no avail, and li drowned.

after the accident, li's parents were grief-stricken and filed a lawsuit with the people's court of tongzhou district, beijing, demanding that the bureau of landscape and greening and a certain landscape company pay a total of 800,000 yuan in death compensation and mental consolation money. li's parents believed that the bureau of landscape and greening and a certain landscape company had failed to fulfill their safety guarantee obligations and that there was obvious inappropriate management. the two defendants argued that the park had set up safety warning signs and was not at fault for the accident.

the court found that the park was a public welfare park open to the public free of charge. the bureau of landscape and greening was the park management unit, which commissioned a landscape company to build and construct the park and was responsible for security during the maintenance period. when the accident occurred, warning signs were set up at the entrance of the park and around the artificial lake to remind tourists that swimming was prohibited.

the court held that the focus of the dispute in the case was whether the garden and greening bureau and the landscape company were at fault for li's death. the garden and greening bureau, as the manager of the park, and the landscape company, as the actual safety protection entity of the park, should perform their duties and fulfill their safety protection obligations within reasonable limits. the park involved in the case is a public welfare park open to the public free of charge. the public can enter and exit freely and play. the garden and greening bureau and the landscape company perform their management obligations mainly based on their general functions of social management. therefore, the reasonable limits of their safety protection obligations should be distinguished from public places engaged in business activities. since the garden and greening bureau and the landscape company have set up warning signs around the artificial lake to remind tourists that swimming is prohibited, it should be considered that they have fulfilled their warning and reminder obligations and fulfilled their safety protection obligations within a reasonable range, and there is no management negligence.

at the same time, li was 14 years old at the time of the accident and had a certain ability to identify. he should have known the dangers of going into the water when warning signs were set up around the artificial lake, and he should have had the common sense that swimming is prohibited in landscape lakes. however, he went into the water without permission, which led to the accident. li's parents, as guardians, also failed to fulfill their guardianship responsibilities. taking all the above factors into consideration, the court ruled to dismiss the lawsuit filed by li's parents.

after the verdict was made, li's parents appealed. after the second instance, the court rejected their appeal and upheld the original verdict. the case has now come into effect.

judge's opinion

judge of the people's court of tongzhou district, beijing liu fang

article 1198 of the civil code of the people's republic of china stipulates that if the operators, managers or organizers of mass activities in business places such as hotels, shopping malls, banks, stations, airports, stadiums, entertainment venues, and public places fail to fulfill their safety guarantee obligations and cause damage to others, they shall bear tort liability. according to this clause, managers of parks, scenic spots and other places have the obligation to take the initiative to take risk prevention and control measures to avoid risks. however, although the safety guarantee obligation requires specific subjects to take reasonable measures to prevent and control risks, it does not mean that risks can be completely eliminated. the content of the safety guarantee obligation should be limited to a reasonable range and should not increase the risk prevention and control burden of the safety guarantee obligor indefinitely. it should be judged comprehensively based on factors such as the severity of the danger itself, the ability to control the danger, and whether the activity is profitable. in this case, the park involved is of a public welfare nature, and the landscape lake is not a place specifically for swimming. therefore, the manager should be deemed to have fulfilled the safety guarantee obligation by setting up corresponding signs.

the accidental drowning of a child has caused an irreversible tragedy for the family, which is regrettable and sympathetic. taking the case as a lesson, the judge reminded the operators and managers of business premises and public places to strengthen the inspection of potential safety hazards, set up warning signs where there are safety risks, and effectively implement and improve the obligation of protection. teenagers should swim in regular swimming pools and not swim in dangerous or unfamiliar waters. parents should strengthen safety education for their children and enhance their children's awareness of drowning prevention.

expert comments

professor of the national judges college and director of the international judges training department wang rui

every summer, there are drowning incidents among minors. in the face of so many accidents, how to define the responsibilities of public water managers and make reasonable definitions of the safety obligations stipulated in the civil code are issues that need to be addressed in judicial practice.

the accident in this case occurred in the park. the court hearing the case, based on the correct determination that the park manager has the legal obligation to ensure safety, examined factors such as whether the park is profitable and whether the preventive measures set up are reasonable, and used common sense to make a comprehensive judgment, reasonably defined the boundaries of the obligations and responsibilities of each entity, and limited the safety obligation to the scope where the danger is foreseeable and the cost is controllable.

the accident in this case has left the family and the society with infinite grief. to prevent accidents from happening, we must take responsibility. all young friends should remember that they are the first responsible person for their life safety, and they must put their own safety first when traveling. as legal guardians, parents should know their children's whereabouts, their companions, what they are doing, and when they will return, and they should also "accompany, supervise, take precautions, and send them back." all social entities should educate and guide minors to establish safety awareness, jointly build a strong safety barrier for young people to prevent drowning, and prevent such tragedies from happening again.