Article 1199
Where a person who lacks capacity for civil conduct suffers personal injury during the course of study or life in a kindergarten, school, or other educational institution, the kindergarten, school, or other educational institution shall bear tort liability;
1. The main purpose of this article
This article is about the tort liability of kindergartens, schools or other educational institutions when a person without civil capacity suffers personal injury.
II. Evolution of the Provisions
This provision inherits the provisions of Article 38 of the original Tort Liability Law, and only adjusts the expression of individual words, and clarifies that the liability borne by kindergartens, schools or other educational institutions is "tort liability".
3. Interpretation of Provisions
This article deals with the presumption of liability for fault of educational institutions.
Articles of this article to 1201 stipulate the rules of tort liability for campus injury accidents, that is, kindergartens, schools or other educational institutions shall bear special tort liability for personal injuries suffered by persons without or limited civil capacity on campus.
The rules for determining the tort liability of an incapacitated person for injuries sustained on campus are:
(1) Students who are incapacitated for civil conduct in kindergartens, schools or other educational institutions, usually primary school students and kindergarten students below the second grade.
(2) The school has the responsibility of education and management for students who lack civil capacity, rather than the transfer of guardianship.
(3) A student who lacks the capacity for civil conduct suffers personal injury on campus due to reasons other than the act of a third party, such as mismanagement by the school.
(4) The failure of the school to fulfill its educational and management responsibilities is the cause of the damage.
The principle of presumption of fault applies to the tort liability of students who lack capacity for civil conduct for injuries on campus, and if it can be proved that students without capacity for civil conduct have suffered damage on campus, it is directly presumed that the school has failed to fulfill its educational and management duties. The reversal of the burden of proof allows the school to provide evidence to prove that it has fulfilled its educational and management duties, and if it can prove it, it will not bear the tort liability; if it cannot prove it, the presumption is established, and the school shall bear the liability for tort compensation.
4. Cases
Zhang v. Changping Foreign Chinese School for infringement of the right to life, right to health, and right to body
Facts: Zhang, a 5-year-old man, fell and injured himself while studying in the Lily English class operated by Changping Foreign Chinese School. Zhang cannot be seen from the video at the time of the accident submitted by the Changping Foreign Chinese School, but the teacher can be seen standing at the door of the classroom at the time of the accident. The court of first instance held that Zhang was only a person with no capacity for civil conduct at the time of the accident and was injured during the training course operated by Changping Foreign Chinese School, and the evidence submitted by Changping Foreign Chinese School was insufficient to prove that he had fulfilled his educational and management duties, so he should be liable for compensation for Zhang's losses. The court of second instance held that, according to article 38 of the Tort Liability Law, if a person without civil capacity suffers personal injury while studying or living in a kindergarten, school or other educational institution, the kindergarten, school or other educational institution shall be liable, but if it can be proved that it has fulfilled its educational and management duties, it shall not be liable. The original verdict was upheld in the second instance.
5. Analysis
When an educational institution bears direct tort liability to a person who lacks capacity for civil conduct, it bears presumption of fault liability, that is, the reason why an educational institution bears tort liability is that it is at fault because it has not fulfilled its educational and management duties, but the burden of proof is reversed for the proof of the elements of fault, and the educational institution is to provide evidence to prove that it has fulfilled its educational and management duties, so that there is no fault. Minors are active by nature and like to play, but they often lack understanding of the nature and consequences of their behavior, so educational institutions should assume corresponding educational and management responsibilities. The educational and management responsibilities of educational institutions that have been determined by laws, regulations, and rules include the obligation to conduct safety education and take safety management measures for students when organizing students to participate in teaching or off-campus activities Chinese. The teacher only stood at the door of the classroom, which was not enough to play the role of safety management, and therefore did not fulfill his educational and management duties, and the school should bear direct tort liability for Zhang's damages.