During the 10-minute break between classes, two elementary school students were injured after accidentally colliding while running. How should liability be apportioned? When a student safety accident occurs on campus, must the school necessarily bear liability?

[Case Review]

When the class bell rang, two seven-year-old primary school students, Xiaohong and Xiaolan, ran toward the school building one after the other. While running, Xiaohong suddenly dodged to the right to avoid a student in front of her. Xiaolan, who was following behind, did not have time to react and crashed into Xiaohong, causing Xiaohong to fall and suffer tooth avulsion. After discovering that Xiaohong was injured, the school teacher immediately took emergency measures and promptly notified the parents to take her to the hospital. Afterward, Xiaohong had multiple follow-up visits, incurring more than RMB 6,000 in medical expenses, transportation costs, and other related expenses. Because compensation negotiations failed, Xiaohong¡¯s family sued Xiaolan, her parents, and the school together in the People¡¯s Court, requesting that they jointly pay the above expenses. Xiaolan and her parents argued that Xiaohong¡¯s injury was not caused by Xiaolan, so they should not bear liability. The school, for its part, argued that it had already fulfilled its safety education obligations and likewise should not bear compensation liability.

[People¡¯s Court Judgment]

After trial, the People¡¯s Court found that, based on the incident video and other materials, the main reason for this campus safety accident was that Xiaohong and Xiaolan were running in the same direction during the break, and Xiaohong suddenly deviated from her running path. Neither of them complied with the school¡¯s relevant safety education requirements, and objectively both were at fault to some extent for the resulting harm. However, because Xiaohong suddenly changed course while running and swayed quite significantly, she should bear the primary responsibility herself. At the time of the incident, both Xiaohong and Xiaolan were persons with no capacity for civil conduct, and the corresponding civil compensation liability should therefore be borne by their guardians in accordance with the law. As for whether the school should bear liability, under the relevant provisions of the Civil Code of the People¡¯s Republic of China, if a person with no capacity for civil conduct suffers personal injury while at school, the school shall bear tort liability; however, if it can prove that it fulfilled its duties of education and management, it shall not bear tort liability. In this case, the school had continuously provided students with safety education in its daily operations. This accident was a sudden event that the school could hardly have anticipated or prevented in advance. After the incident, the school responded promptly, immediately investigated what had happened, notified the parents and arranged medical treatment, and organized compensation discussions multiple times. It had already fulfilled the due duty of prudent prevention as well as its duties of safety education and management. Therefore, the school did not need to bear compensation liability.

Accordingly, the People¡¯s Court ruled that Xiaohong should bear 70 % responsibility for her own losses, while Xiaolan and her parents should bear 30 % of the compensation liability. The school bears no liability. After the judgment was rendered, all parties accepted the ruling and did not appeal.

[Judge¡¯s Notes]

I. Clearing Up Misconceptions About Liability for Campus Torts

The shared goal of schools and parents is to ensure that minors can study and grow safely and healthily at school. But if an accident occurs, how should the school¡¯s liability be determined? At the legal level, there are already clear rules defining the boundaries of the school¡¯s liability and the standards for assuming it. Under Article 1199 of the Civil Code of the People¡¯s Republic of China, when a person with no capacity for civil conduct suffers personal injury at school, the determination of the school¡¯s liability follows the principle of presumed fault. Under Article 1200, when a person with limited capacity for civil conduct suffers personal injury at school, the determination of the school¡¯s liability follows the principle of fault liability.

This means that the key to deciding whether a school must bear liability lies in whether the school was at fault in its education or management, not in the mere fact that personal injury occurred. This rule helps ease schools¡¯ management concerns and prevents them from adopting blanket restrictions on student activities simply to avoid risk. It encourages schools to strike a reasonable balance between maintaining normal management order and promoting students¡¯ free and well-rounded development, thereby truly realizing the principle of maximizing the protection of minors¡¯ interests.

II. Clarifying the Factors for Assessing School Liability

In judicial practice, determining whether a school has fulfilled its duties of education and management requires a comprehensive review of several aspects of daily management: first, before the incident, whether the school¡¯s safety education was targeted and conducted on a regular basis; second, at the time of the incident, whether the site, facilities, and equipment were in good condition and free from safety defects, and whether the school had properly arranged for teachers to conduct patrols; third, after the incident, whether the school handled the matter appropriately, including promptly notifying the parents, assisting with medical treatment, and conducting a timely accident investigation.

In this case, after a comprehensive and meticulous review, the People¡¯s Court ultimately determined that the school had established and actually implemented a sound safety management system and had fulfilled, within the scope of its responsibilities, its prudent and comprehensive duties of education and management. Therefore, it ruled that the school need not bear liability.

III. Building a Stronger Joint Protection Effort Between Families and Schools

Schools and parents are joint duty bearers in safeguarding minors¡¯ safety on campus, and they should work in the same direction both in mindset and in daily action. Schools should consistently strengthen campus safety management, stay highly alert to risk prevention, and genuinely help students develop a sense of rules and safety awareness through safety education and mental health education. Parents should also provide children with day-to-day safety education, improve their awareness and ability to protect themselves, guide them to take primary responsibility for their own safety and health, and work together with schools to minimize accidental injuries to minors to the greatest extent possible.

If an unfortunate accident does occur, all parties should also respond rationally and handle it properly, doing everything possible to create a good environment for the minor¡¯s physical and psychological recovery. Only when schools and families put themselves in each other¡¯s shoes, understand one another, and resolve conflicts and differences through lawful and compliant channels can they jointly create a safe, orderly, harmonious, and inclusive campus environment for minors.

[Commentary from a People¡¯s Representative]

As the campus safety governance system continues to improve, the protection of minors¡¯ personal rights and interests at school has drawn increasingly widespread public attention, and the apportionment of liability in campus safety incidents has increasingly become a focal issue in social governance. How to accurately define the school¡¯s duty to ensure safety, while avoiding allowing ¡°unlimited liability¡± to hinder normal educational and teaching activities, tests the wisdom and sense of responsibility of the judiciary.

The highlight of this case is that, in handling a campus safety incident during the 10-minute break between classes, the People¡¯s Court made clear that the school is not an ¡°unlimited liability bearer¡±. It lawfully examined the school¡¯s duties of education and management, ascertained that the school had regularly carried out safety education during breaks, improved its campus safety management system, and, after the accident, responded promptly, provided proper assistance, and notified the parents. The school had fully fulfilled its statutory duties of education and management, and therefore was lawfully found not to bear compensation liability.

This judgment helps correct the mistaken social perception that ¡°if something happens at school, the school is responsible¡±, and guides the public to view the boundaries of campus safety liability rationally. At the same time, it also warns schools that they must put safety responsibilities into real practice, establish and improve safety contingency plans and effectively implement them, and develop break-time activities in a scientific and effective way so as to safeguard students¡¯ long-term healthy development.

[Relevant Legal Provisions]

Civil Code of the People¡¯s Republic of China

Article 1199 If a person with no capacity for civil conduct suffers personal injury while studying or living in a kindergarten, school, or other educational institution, the kindergarten, school, or other educational institution shall bear tort liability; however, if it can prove that it fulfilled its duties of education and management, it shall not bear tort liability.

Article 1200 If a person with limited capacity for civil conduct suffers personal injury while studying or living at a school or other educational institution, and the school or other educational institution failed to fulfill its duties of education and management, it shall bear tort liability.