Legal basis:
The Interpretation on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Personal Injury Compensation Cases clearly stipulates the legal application of 1 1 specific infringement types.
Article 7 of the Interpretation stipulates that "schools, kindergartens or other educational institutions that have the obligation to educate, manage and protect minors according to law fail to fulfill their relevant obligations within the scope of their duties, causing personal injury to minors, or minors causing personal injury to others, they shall bear the liability for compensation equivalent to their fault."
Related information:
In recent years, personal injury accidents of primary and secondary school students have increased year by year. "Students are injured during school. Of course, the school has the responsibility and should pay compensation!" Many people, including parents of students, believe that schools should bear the responsibility of guardians of minors, and schools can't exempt students from harm in any case.
Is that really the case? In this issue, the judge said that according to different situations, the judge stated the principle of compensation for campus injury accidents. ...
More and more campus injury cases are before the judges. "The school is the guardian of primary and secondary school students. Schools should be like parents. Once the child is hurt, the school will pay compensation! " Many parents of students think so. Is it hard to avoid campus injury cases in schools? However, a recent injury accident caused by a primary school student playing chess on campus gave a negative answer-not to say that as long as there is a campus injury case, the school should bear the liability for compensation.
Students were injured during lunch break and the school was sentenced to no responsibility.
Liu Cheng, 8 years old, never imagined that after playing chess at school, she was disabled.
On June 20th last year, Liu Cheng and Wang Liang, students from Dongling Street Central Primary School in Dongling District, met on campus. It's lunch break after class, so they play chess with stones. But in the process, Wang Liang accidentally injured Liu Cheng's index finger, which led to the fracture of the phalanx of Liu Cheng's left index finger. According to the forensic expertise of China Medical University, Liu's disability level is Grade 9. After the accident, Liu and Wang failed to reach an agreement on compensation. At the beginning of this year, Liu Cheng sued Wang Liang, Wang Liang's father and Dongling Street Central Primary School. The three defendants were required to compensate the plaintiff for medical expenses, transportation expenses, nursing expenses and disability subsidies totaling nearly 20,000 yuan. "The school has the obligation to protect the personal safety of underage students during their school days. Students are injured on campus during their lunch break. If the school fails to fulfill its due obligations and is at fault, it should bear the corresponding liability for compensation. " The plaintiff put forward his reasons in court. The defendant Dongling Street Central Primary School in Dongling District held that the school was not at fault and disagreed with the compensation.
The court held that the plaintiff Liu Cheng was physically injured by the defendant, and the defendant Wang Liang should be liable for compensation. Because the defendant Liu Cheng is a minor under the age of 18, his guardian, the defendant's father, should be liable for compensation. In addition, the accident occurred during lunch break, and the defendant Dongling Street Central Primary School in Dongling District was not responsible in this case, so it should not be liable for compensation. If the guardian needs to bear civil liability for infringement, it shall be borne by the guardian, unless otherwise agreed. Finally, the court ruled that the parents of the defendant Wang Liang compensated the plaintiff Liu Cheng for medical expenses, transportation expenses and other related expenses.
In that case, why can the school not take responsibility? Lawyer Liu Yanmin of Liaoning Donglai Law Firm, a school defense lawyer at Dongling Street Central Primary School in Dongling District, said in an interview:
First of all, the school is not the guardian of minor students during their school days, and should not bear no-fault responsibility for minor students' injury or damage. The relationship between schools and students is mainly educational. Students enter schools for education. The school is neither a nanny nor a bodyguard, and has no obligation to watch and monitor students' behavior from time to time. Schools are teaching institutions, and it is impossible and impossible to adopt one-to-one or one-to-one teaching management mode for education. Therefore, the enrollment of students does not mean the transfer of guardianship, and the school cannot be required to assume the responsibility of guardian, let alone the unlimited guardianship obligation beyond the scope of duties.
Secondly, the school will bear the corresponding liability for compensation only if it fails to fulfill its due obligations and is subjectively at fault. If the school is not at fault, causing injuries or injuries to students at school, the school should not bear the responsibility. In this case, Liu Cheng was injured after school at noon, which belongs to the legal rest time and does not belong to the time when the school implemented education and teaching activities. At this time, the school has no legal obligation of education management. And after the accident, the school actively implemented the obligation of treatment, and the school management and protection were in place. Therefore, the school is not at fault in this case and should not bear the responsibility.
Lawyer Liu further explained: "In this case, the court made a judgment that the school was not responsible. The court referred to the provisions in the Measures for Handling Students' Injury Accidents, stipulating that the school will not be responsible for injuries that occur when students stay at school or go to school by themselves after school, holidays or holidays. Because the injury accident in this case occurred after school in the morning and during the lunch break at noon, it was ruled that the school was not liable for compensation. "
From no mistakes to mistakes.
With the increase of campus injury cases, the problem of how schools should bear the responsibility has attracted people's attention.
In this regard, the judge told reporters that at present, the trial of similar cases is generally based on the Supreme People's Court's Interpretation on Several Issues Concerning the Trial of Personal Injury Compensation Cases and the Measures for Handling Student Injury Accidents promulgated by the Ministry of Education.
In September 2002, the Measures for Handling Student Injury Accidents was formally implemented. The "Measures" clearly stipulate that schools do not undertake guardianship duties for underage students, and parents or other guardians of underage students should perform guardianship duties according to law and cooperate with schools to carry out safety education, management and protection for students.
In 2004, the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Trial of Personal Injury Compensation Cases stipulated: "Schools, kindergartens or other educational institutions that are legally obligated to educate, manage and protect minors fail to perform relevant obligations within the scope of their duties, causing personal injury to minors, or causing personal injury to others by minors, they shall be liable for compensation corresponding to their faults. If a third party causes personal injury to minors, it shall be liable for compensation. If schools, kindergartens and other educational institutions are at fault, they shall bear corresponding supplementary liability for compensation. "
Here, the spirit of "Measures" and "Interpretation" is consistent, and the principle of imputation of school responsibility is established as fault responsibility, that is, the relationship between school and students is education, and the school is responsible for education, management and protection of students, and there is no guardianship responsibility. Only when there is a fault in the campus injury accident can we bear the liability for compensation. Previously, in campus injury cases, the school assumed no-fault responsibility-that is, the school assumed guardianship responsibility for underage students at school, or thought that the custody of underage students was transferred after their parents sent them to school.
In fact, discussing how to blame the school is not the ultimate goal of this article. Let our children get the safest care in school and grow up freely, which is the responsibility of both school teachers and parents. This may be our ultimate goal.
When is the school in charge? When is there no responsibility?
The promulgation of "Measures for Handling Student Injury Accidents" and "Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Trial of Personal Injury Compensation Cases" clarified the responsibility of campus injury accidents. Then, under what circumstances should the school be responsible for campus injury accidents? Under what circumstances is the school not responsible? According to the Measures for Handling Student Injury Accidents, the school has fulfilled its corresponding responsibilities for student injury accidents caused by one of the following circumstances, and there is no misconduct and no legal responsibility:
(a) caused by irresistible natural factors such as earthquakes, lightning strikes, typhoons and floods;
(two) caused by sudden and accidental infringement from outside the school;
(3) Students have special physique, specific diseases or abnormal mental state, which the school does not know or is difficult to know; (4) Students commit suicide or self-injury; (5) Accidental injuries in antagonistic or dangerous sports competitions;
(six) caused by other unexpected factors. The school will not be held responsible for accidents that cause personal injury to students under the following circumstances, as long as the school's behavior is not improper; The determination of accident liability shall be based on relevant laws, regulations or other relevant provisions: (1) It occurred on the way of students going to and from school, leaving school, returning to school or leaving school;
(two) occurred during the period of students going out or leaving school without authorization;
(three) after school, holidays or holidays and other school working hours, students stay in school or go to school by themselves;
(four) other occurred outside the scope of school management responsibilities. The cases in which the school bears the corresponding liability for compensation in campus injury accidents mainly include 12: public facilities such as school buildings and venues, as well as school tools, teaching and living facilities and equipment provided by the school for students do not meet the national standards, or there are obvious unsafe factors; There are obvious omissions in the school's security management system, such as public security, fire fighting, facilities and equipment management, or management confusion, and there are major security risks, and measures are not taken in time; Drugs, food and drinking water provided by the school to students do not meet the relevant national or industrial standards and requirements; The school organizes students to participate in educational and teaching activities or extracurricular activities, and fails to provide students with corresponding safety education and take necessary safety measures within the foreseeable scope; School teachers or other staff members corporal punishment or corporal punishment in disguised form in the course of performing their duties, or violate the work requirements, operating rules, professional ethics or other relevant regulations. ...
School compensation liability case
Case 1: Xiao Gang, a primary school student, went to physical education class. The teacher asked another student, Xiao Qiang, to manage Xiao Gang and Xiao Qiang to push Xiao Gang. As a result, Xiaogang fell on the concrete floor of the playground and broke two front teeth. The court held that a primary school in Heping District had the fault of unfavorable supervision and management measures because it instructed students without civil capacity to manage each other during class. At the same time, the school makes students engage in strenuous exercise on the hard cement floor, which is easy to cause injuries and fails to fulfill their duties of ensuring the safety of educational facilities. Because of these two reasons, Xiaogang's personal injury occurred directly, and the school was sentenced by the court to bear 30% of the liability for compensation.
Case 2: Wang Fang and Li Hua are classmates. In Chinese class, the two quarreled over a trivial matter and then got into a fight. As a result, Li Hua's eyes were hurt by Wang Fang. When the incident happened, the teacher didn't stop it in time. As a result, the school where the teacher worked assumed certain liability for compensation.