Parents sued two companions and their parents for 710,000 yuan. Three minors played in a river in Shanghai and one drowned.
When a child unfortunately drowns, do other minor companions need to bear liability for compensation? Recently, the Songjiang District People’s Court of Shanghai heard such a right-to-life dispute case.
16-year-old Xiaobai, 16-year-old Xiaolin, and 14-year-old Xiaomei make an appointment to go fishing and fishing at the river together. Xiaobai and Xiaolin went into the river first. Xiaobai was not familiar with water properties and accidentally slipped into the deep water area. Xiao Lin rushed to rescue, but failed to rescue Xiao Bai. Xiao Lin immediately went ashore and called passers-by for help. Xiao Mei also called the police. However, Xiaobai still drowned unfortunately.
The grieving parents of Xiaobai took Xiaolin, Xiaomei and their parents to court together. Xiaobai's parents believe that Xiaolin did not ask Xiaobai whether he could swim before entering the water, nor did he prevent Xiaobai from entering the water. After entering the water, Xiaobai instantly slipped into the deep water, and Xiaolin did not try his best to save him, which led to Xiaobai's death. Xiaomei also failed to fulfill her obligation to remind people to wear safety equipment and pay attention to safety. Therefore, Xiaolin, Xiaomei and their parents are required to jointly bear 40% responsibility for Xiaobai's death and pay compensation of more than 710,000 yuan.
Xiao Lin and his parents argued that Xiao Bai was over 16 years old at the time of the accident and had some knowledge and foreknowledge of the dangers of going into the water. Swimming in the river was an act of taking risks. Xiaolin's performance throughout the entire process was consistent with his age and intelligence level. He was not at fault and should not be liable for compensation. Xiaomei and her parents argued that the accident was an accident. Xiaomei was not the organizer of the event and did not actually participate in the swimming or fishing activities. She also participated in the rescue when the accident occurred and actively cooperated with the police after the accident. investigation, so he did not have any fault for Xiaobai's death.
The Songjiang Court pointed out that the focus of the dispute in this case was whether defendants Xiaolin and Xiaomei had the duty to rescue Xiaobai when he drowned.
After hearing the case, the court held that, first of all, the playmates who were traveling together were not the subjects with legal obligations to rescue. Secondly, Xiaobai, the defendants Xiaolin and Xiaomei were classmates and village partners of similar ages. The three of them went to play by the natural waterway out of friendship, and there was no obvious organizer or manager. Finally, Xiaolin tried to rescue Xiaobai after he was in danger but failed. Xiaomei took advantage of the terrain on the shore to inform Xiaolin of Xiaobai's location in time, and called the police as soon as possible after communicating with Xiaolin.
At the time of the incident, the defendants Xiaolin and Xiaomei were both persons with limited capacity for civil conduct. Their physical and mental development was not yet complete, and they were unable to protect themselves in the face of emergencies. They were also unable to rescue Xiaobai from the depths of the river. Successfully rescued. The two men's behavior after the incident was consistent with their age, and they should not be burdened with the obligation to rescue their companions beyond their abilities.
In summary, the Songjiang Court ruled that Xiao Lin, Xiao Mei and their parents did not need to bear liability for infringement damages.
