In recent years, the tattoo phenomenon has tended to be younger. More and more minors use tattoos to show their personality and aesthetics, and pursue the chic and uninhibited "not as good as that embroidery, accompanied by the king's getaway", but they ignore a series of adverse effects caused by tattoos, don't let yourself be cool for a while, and hurt for a lifetime!
Basic facts of the case
In February 2022, Zheng (then 15 years old) went to a beauty studio for a tattoo, and the operator, Shen, provided him with tattoo services after charging Zheng 400 yuan for tattooing.
In May 2023, after Zheng's parents found out, they took him to the hospital to clean his tattoo, spending 31,202.68 yuan in medical expenses and 2,169 yuan in transportation expenses. Zheng and his parents demanded compensation from the beauty studio for medical expenses, transportation expenses, spiritual solace, and a refund of the tattoo fee. Shen believed that he should not be held responsible, and the notice in the store clearly reminded that he was not allowed to get a tattoo under the age of 18, while Zheng claimed to be 18 years old and took the initiative to inquire about the price and provide tattoo designs, which was his voluntary tattoo. The parties failed to reach an agreement and sued the court.
Heard by the courts
After trial, the court held that Article 4 of the Measures for the Management of Tattoos for Minors stipulates that "no enterprise, organization or individual shall provide tattoo services to minors, and shall not coerce, induce or instigate minors to get tattoos", and Article 5 stipulates that "tattoo service providers shall indicate in a conspicuous position that they do not provide tattoo services to minors." Where it is difficult to determine whether they are minors, they shall be required to present their identity documents."
Article 34 of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China stipulates that "the duty of a guardian is to carry out civil legal acts on behalf of the ward and protect the personal rights, property rights and other legitimate rights and interests of the ward", and "if the guardian fails to perform guardianship duties or infringes upon the lawful rights and interests of the ward, he shall bear legal responsibility".
In this case, Zheng was at least 15 years old at the time of the tattoo and was a person with limited capacity for civil conduct, and based on his age, intelligence, social experience, etc., he was not able to correctly judge the damage, impact, and other adverse consequences caused by the tattoo to his body and personality rights. His parents, as legal guardians, failed to discover the tattoo for nearly a year, failed to fulfill their due guardianship and management obligations, and were at fault for the occurrence of the damage. However, Shen, as the operator of the studio, failed to require Zheng to provide documents to verify his true age when he could not judge whether the customer was an adult, and failed to fulfill his strict duty of prudence, which was a major fault.
Therefore, with reference to the above provisions, combined with the degree of fault of both parties, it was decided that the studio should bear 70% of the compensation liability (23,360 yuan, retain the whole number), and Zheng should bear 30% by himself. Considering that tattoos are not conducive to the physical and mental health of minors, and that the phenomenon of tattoos is mostly negatively evaluated by society, which will have an impact on their future studies and employment, and that cleaning tattoos will inevitably be accompanied by physical pain and mental torture, the claim for compensation for spiritual solace is supported.
In addition, although a service contract relationship has been formed between the two parties, the business operator Shen's provision of tattoo services to Zheng without the consent or recognition of the guardian is an invalid civil juristic act, and the tattoo fee should be returned.
After the verdict was handed down, neither party appealed, and the judgment is now in force.
What the judge said
Can a tattoo shop exempt minors from liability for voluntary tattoos?
On June 6, 2022, the Office of the State Council Leading Group for the Protection of Minors issued the Measures for the Management of Tattoos for Minors, which prohibits the provision of tattoo services to minors, that is, "no enterprise, organization or individual shall provide tattoo services to minors, and shall not coerce, entic, or instigate minors to get tattoos." ”
Minors, as persons with no or limited capacity for civil conduct, are unable to correctly understand and judge the harm and impact of tattooing on their physical and mental health, personality interests, social identity, and so forth, due to their age, intelligence, social experience, and so forth. The provision of tattoo services to minors does not have the characteristics of protecting the interests of minors, and even if the minors receive tattoo services voluntarily, the commitment to dispose of their bodies is invalid because they cannot accurately discern the consequences of their actions, and the tattoo shop or the tattoo service provider is certainly not exempt from liability. Even if the guardian agrees to the tattoo, the act of consent or posthumous recognition does not justify the tattoo.
In this case, Zheng lied about his age, and the operator Shen failed to fulfill his duty of prudence, which was a major fault; Zheng's guardian failed to discover and stop the tattoo in a timely manner, and was also at fault for the occurrence of the damage. Therefore, the liability of tattoo service providers could be appropriately mitigated by a discretionary 70 per cent liability.
Is tattooing a pure benefit for minors?
Article 19 of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China stipulates: "Minors over the age of eight are persons with limited capacity for civil conduct, and the implementation of civil juristic acts is represented by their legal representatives or with the consent and recognition of their legal representatives, but they may independently carry out civil juristic acts that are purely beneficial or civil juristic acts appropriate to their age and intelligence." "Pure benefit means that there will be no legal burden, i.e., no derogation of rights and no increase in obligations.
Tattooing, also known as tattooing, is an invasive action on the body by injecting a color material that can leave a permanent mark into the skin and carving or drawing a pattern, which is easy to infect, difficult to recover, and labeled. Tattooing minors will not only cause skin allergies, infections, and lesions, but may also hinder their future education and employment, and infringe on minors' rights to health, development, protection, and social participation. Therefore, tattooing is not conducive to the growth and development of minors, and is not a purely beneficial act for minors.
Source: Nanzhao County Court, Yufa Sunshine Contributed by: Tang Wenliang