An 8-year-old girl was injured when her foot got caught in the wheel of a four-wheel pedal bike rented at a park. Her parents were pedaling in the front seats, while she sat in the back. Who should bear the responsibility?

[Case Review]

In August 2024, the girl, Xiaoyu, went to a park with her parents and younger brother. After signing the Bicycle Rental Notice, the parents rented a four-wheel human-powered pedal bike. During the ride, the parents sat in the front and the two children sat in the back. During the ride, the parents sat in the front and the children sat in the back. Unexpectedly, Xiaoyu's foot was caught in the wheel, resulting in a toe injury. Park staff promptly assisted her in exiting the park and seek medical attention.

Xiaoyu's parents believed that the park had failed to fulfill its duty of safety assurance and was at fault. They filed a lawsuit demanding compensation of over CNY 50,000.

The park argued that it is a large suburban park open to the public free of charge. The parents did not follow the rental terms and arranged for two children under 1.5 meters in height to sit alone in the rear seats of the rented leisure bike. The parents failed to fulfill their duty of care, which was the cause of the girl's injury. The park claimed it bore no fault and was only willing to provide humanitarian compensation.

Upon review, the court found that the park involved in this case is a public place open to an unspecified group of people and accessible free of charge. The scope of the duty of safety assurance should be limited to what is reasonably within the management and control capacity of the park operator. Visitors accompanied by children independently chose to rent leisure vehicles for recreational purposes. Prominent notices labeled Visitor Guidelines were displayed on all leisure vehicles, clearly stating that the vehicles must be used only under the full supervision of a guardian. The Bicycle Rental Notice also explicitly stated: Children under 1.5 meters must be accompanied by an adult. Although Xiaoyu's parents signed the Bicycle Rental Notice, they failed to comply with the requirement to accompany their child in the rear seat. After the incident, the park promptly assisted Xiaoyu in leaving the premises for medical treatment, thereby fulfilling its duty to warn and provide aid. The park was not at fault. Ultimately, the court acknowledged the park¡¯s voluntary humanitarian compensation and dismissed all of the plaintiffs' claims.

[Judge's Remarks]

I. Duty of Safety Assurance Has "Reasonable Limits"

The duty of safety assurance refers to the obligation borne by operators or managers of business premises or public places, such as hotels, shopping malls, banks, stations, airports, stadiums, and places of entertainment, and the organizers of public activities. Where such parties fail to fulfill this duty and cause harm to others, they shall bear tort liability. The liability for breach of the duty of safety assurance is subject to the principle of fault-based liability. Only when operators or managers of public places neglect to perform their duty of safety assurance will they be held liable in tort.

The duty of safety assurance borne by operators and managers of public places is limited to a reasonable scope and is defined by the need to meet general safety requirements; it is not a "cure-all" for the enforcement of individual rights. The statutory duty of safety assurance in fact includes a qualifier, namely "within reasonable limits". This means that the duty of safety assurance is neither without boundaries nor "uniformly applicable". As public places differ in their functional nature and capacity for risk prevention, the boundaries of the "reasonable limits" of the duty of safety assurance also differ accordingly.

II. Guardians Must Fulfill Their Duty of Care

As the summer season approaches, amusement venues are expected to see increased crowds and more complex situations. Parents must always remember that they are the primary persons responsible for the safety of their children. They should exercise caution and be mindful of the potential dangers posed by their own actions. If a child is placed in harm's way due to a guardian's misconduct, the guardian may bear the primary or even full liability for the resulting damage. Each party has its own defined scope of responsibility. One cannot "shift" their own duty of guardianship onto public places or convert personal responsibility into a matter of social liability.

[Committee Member Comments]

Wang Gang, Deputy to the Shanghai Municipal People's Congress, Secretary of the General Party Branch and Director of the Village Committee of Changxing Village, Chengqiao Town, Chongming District, Shanghai

The scope of the duty of safety assurance in public places should correspond to the scale, nature, and functional scope of the venue. The park involved in this case is a large, suburban-type park open to the public free of charge. The plaintiff was not required to purchase any admission ticket to enter the park. As the manager of this large park, the defendant should not be subjected to an unduly burdensome security obligation, as doing so would harm the public interest.

In this case, the court, having comprehensively considered the facts, held that the defendant had fulfilled the level of safety assurance generally expected by the public. In the absence of further evidence from the plaintiff to prove the defendant's fault, the court did not adopt the logic of "wherever there is injury or death, there must be compensation". Instead, it promptly clarified responsibility and resolved the dispute. The court's accurate understanding of the "reasonable limits" of the duty of safety assurance provides clear guidance for operators and managers of public places, helping to prevent the improper increase of operational costs, stimulate market vitality, and avoid situations in which guardians benefit from their own misconduct. It also urges guardians to strengthen their awareness of risk prevention and protection, safeguard the lawful rights and interests of children, and thereby achieves a balance between judicial effect and social effect.

[Legal Provision Reference]

Civil Code of the People's Republic of China

Article 1198 Operators or managers of business or public premises such as hotels, shopping malls, banks, bus or train stations, airports, stadiums, and places of entertainment, or the organizers of public activities shall bear tort liability where they fail to fulfill the duty of maintaining safety and thus cause damage to another person.

Where the damage to another person is caused by a third party, the third person shall bear tort liability, and the operator, manager, or organizer who fails to fulfill the duty of maintaining safety shall assume the corresponding supplementary liability. After assuming the supplementary liability, the operator, manager, or organizer may claim indemnification against the third party.