Who is responsible?, Three students drowned while playing in a fish pond

15-year-old Xiao Qiang, 13-year-old Xiao Hai, and 12-year-old Xiao Ming went to the wilderness to play on weekends, but unfortunately drowned in an abandoned fish pond. Subsequently, parents Fu, Tan, and others sued personnel related to the fish pond. Who should be held responsible for this accident? Recently, the Second Intermediate People's Court of Hainan Province has concluded two cases of disputes over the right to life and provided answers.

At around 19:00 on April 11, 2021, Fu, Tan, and others who work and reside at a wood factory in Danzhou City discovered that Xiaohai, Xiaoming, and Xiaoqiang were missing. They began searching together with the workers at the wood factory.

At around 21:30 that evening, a child's clothing was found in a fish pond in a certain village and reported to the police. At around 23:00, relevant department staff arrived at the scene one after another. Starting at 1am the next day, the three children were successively salvaged and brought ashore. On June 23rd, the public security organs assessed that all three individuals had died from drowning. Afterwards, Fu received an insurance claim payment of 180000 yuan, and Tan received an insurance claim payment of 90000 yuan.

After investigation, the land ownership of the fish pond in question belongs to a certain village group. The area was originally a rice field, but due to year-round water scarcity, it was not suitable for growing rice. Before 1985, He Moufeng and three others excavated the involved fish pond and surrounding areas to create a fish pond. The fish pond was once contracted by someone else for aquaculture, but it has been returned after the contract expired. In 2016, He Moufeng's son He Mouli raised fish in the fish pond until the Spring Festival of 2017, and since then, the fish pond in question has been left unattended.

There were a total of 7 fish ponds at the accident site, with varying sizes and an area of approximately 62 acres. Why did the owners of the fish ponds where the three students drowned.

The accident investigation report determined that the three students who drowned had weak safety awareness and were all minors. They ran to the fish pond without their parents' consent during holidays, resulting in drowning and death, which was the direct cause of the accident; The fish pond involved in the case was left unattended for a long time, with no other safety warning signs in the surrounding area, no safety protection measures set up, and the guardian's failure to fulfill their supervisory duties was an indirect cause of the accident. The incident occurred in the fish pond, which belongs to the jurisdiction of the village group. A certain village committee did not fulfill its local management responsibilities, did not have a sufficient understanding of drowning prevention work, and did not strictly follow the inspection requirements of key areas and time periods. As a result, the surrounding seven fish ponds were in a state of long-term loss of control, posing a safety hazard.

The first instance court held that the dispute was caused by personal injury due to safety hazards in the fish pond involved. According to the accident investigation report, the village group as the owner of the fish pond land and the village committee responsible for territorial management did not fulfill their management responsibilities for the abandoned fish pond and should be held responsible for the accident in this case. As the user of the fish pond, He Moufeng has the obligation to ensure safety, but since 2017, he has not taken necessary and effective supervision and protection measures for the fish pond, and has made certain mistakes. He should bear corresponding responsibilities for the drowning of three students. Three students are individuals with limited capacity for civil conduct and possess corresponding safety knowledge and self-protection awareness. However, their safety awareness is weak. They knowingly played in the fish pond without the consent of their parents, resulting in drowning and death. They themselves have obvious faults. Guardians who fail to fulfill their supervisory and educational obligations during the holiday period should bear the fault responsibility for inadequate supervision.

The first instance court held that in the context of vigorously strengthening education and publicity on preventing student drowning safety in Danzhou City, urging parents to fulfill their guardianship duties during holidays, and effectively fulfilling the safety responsibilities of students and parents, three student drowning accidents unfortunately occurred, and all responsible parties should bear corresponding responsibilities for the accidents.

The first instance court weighed the safety hazards of the fish pond involved in the case and the magnitude of the cause of the accident, and determined that Fu, Tang, and their sons Xiao Hai and Xiao Ming should bear 70% of the responsibility for the accident, while the village group, village committee, and He Moufeng should each bear 10% of the compensation responsibility for the accident; Tan, Zhou, and their son Xiaoqiang bear 70% of the responsibility for the accident, while the village group, village committee, and He Moufeng each bear 10% of the compensation responsibility for the accident. The village group, village committee, and He Moufeng were sentenced to compensate Fu and Tang for various economic losses of more than 167300 yuan, and Tan and Zhou for various economic losses of more than 83600 yuan.

After the first instance verdict, the village committee appealed, stating that it was not the main responsible party for the accident and should not be liable for compensation. After trial, the Hainan Second Intermediate People's Court believes that the accident investigation report determined that the village committee was at fault for the occurrence of the drowning accident in this case, and that there was a legal obligation of inaction, and it should bear certain responsibilities in accordance with the law. The appeal request of the village committee cannot be established. The first instance judgment clearly determined the facts and correctly applied the law, rejected the appeal, and upheld the original judgment.

The judge reminded that families, schools, and society should tighten the string of safety education, so that young people can learn swimming and drowning prevention skills, educate and guide them to enhance outdoor safety awareness, and build the strictest safety defense line for their healthy growth; As parents or guardians, we should fulfill our guardianship responsibilities and not only accompany and supervise minors, but also educate them to stay away from dangerous waters and not to enter the water without authorization.