□ Information Times reporter Liang Haoye's address book Pan Zilu, Huang Yule, Xie Yan

His son drowned in the fishpond outside his home. In grief, the parents took the village committee that managed the fishpond to court for failing to fulfill their security obligations. Recently, Huizhou Intermediate People's Court heard the case and believed that the main reason was the poor guardianship of parents, but the village committee also had to bear 10% of the responsibility.

　　 case

　　 Sunzi, the original fishpond contractor, drowned

On February 21, 2007, the council of a village in Luzhou Town, Huicheng District, Huizhou City held a meeting and decided to transform the fish pond at the gate of the temple. The council mobilized enthusiasts and villagers to make donations. The reconstruction of the fishpond was completed at the beginning of 2008. On March 30, 2008, Xu Mouchi contracted the fishpond to raise fish and signed a Fish Pond Lease Contract with the defendant. The lease term was from March 30, 2008 to March 30, 2013, with an annual rent of 5300 yuan. During the lease period, Xu Mouchi was responsible for the management of the fishpond. After the lease contract expired, the two parties did not renew the lease contract. The village committee has set up guardrails around the fish pond and installed a notice board of "water depth in the fish pond, pay attention to safety".

On July 29, 2013, Xu's grandson Xiaoyang (not his real name) drowned in the fish pond at his home. In grief, Xu Mouchi's son and daughter-in-law Xu Moubang and his wife took the village committee to court, because the village committee failed to fulfill its security obligations.

The plaintiff Xu and his wife claimed that the village committee had forcibly changed the fish pond from the original flat, safe and practical shape of the bottom of the pot to a steep, deep and dangerous pond, and had not taken effective safety protection settings and safety warning signs, which brought long-term safety hazards to the surrounding villagers. Therefore, the village committee had an unshirkable responsibility, The People's Court of Huicheng District is requested to adjudge the village committee to compensate the spiritual loss and economic loss totaling 380000 yuan, and the fishpond is required to restore its historical appearance.

　　 first instance

　　 Parents are primarily responsible

　　 The village committee is responsible for 10%

The village committee argued that Xiaoyang's drowning was caused by inadequate guardianship and had nothing to do with the safety of the pond. Moreover, the transformation of the pond was completed through donations and the villagers' spontaneous establishment of a council, which had nothing to do with the village committee. After the renovation of the pond, the village committee has set up guardrails on three sides of the pond near the villagers, and hung safety signs. Xu Mouchi, the father of the plaintiff Xu Moubang, did not raise any objection to the safety of the pond and did not supplement any safety measures for the pond during the period of contracting for fish farming, so the village committee will not be liable for compensation.

Huicheng District Court held that the defendant, as the owner and manager of the fishpond involved in the case, should manage and maintain the fishpond to ensure its safety. According to the photos of the scene submitted by the defendant, the defendant took safety measures for the fishpond and set up warning signs to fulfill certain safety care obligations. However, the plaintiff's child was more than one year old when the accident occurred in this case. For children, there were still potential safety hazards in the fishpond, and the defendant had certain faults. Before the accident, the father of the two plaintiffs contracted the pond, and the two plaintiffs also lived near the pond, so they were familiar with the situation of the pond. The two plaintiffs, as guardians of the child, failed to fulfill their guardianship obligations, resulting in drowning of the child. They were mainly responsible for this and should bear the main responsibility. For this reason, the court ordered the defendant to bear 10% of the compensation liability at its discretion. To sum up, the defendant village committee was judged to compensate the plaintiff Xu Moubang and his wife for death compensation, funeral expenses, and emotional damage consolation, totaling 29905.73 yuan.

　　 second instance

　　 Uphold the original judgment

　　 Reject the plaintiff's appeal

After the judgment, Xu and his wife objected and appealed to Huizhou Intermediate People's Court, claiming that the village committee was mainly responsible for the case of Xiaoyang's drowning, and demanded compensation of 90000 yuan for mental damage.

The village committee replied that during the first trial, Xu and his wife admitted that they were not at home when Xiao Yang drowned. Xiao Yang was looked after by his grandfather, Xu Mouchi, who was drying peanuts at that time. Xiao Yang, who is only one and a half years old, has no sense of safety at all and walks around alone. Xu Mouchi has not fulfilled his guardianship responsibility, so the guardian should take full responsibility.

Huizhou Intermediate People's Court held that the focus of the dispute in this case was whether the village committee should bear the compensation liability for Xiaoyang's drowning. In this case, the appellant Xu Moubang and his wife claimed that the appellee should bear the burden of proof to bear the liability of compensation for Xiaoyang's drowning. When the accident occurred in this case, the appellant handed Xiao Yang over to his father Xu Mouchi for temporary custody, and Xu Mouchi failed to fulfill his guardianship obligations, which was the main reason for Xiao Yang's drowning; The appellee set up guardrails around the pond involved in the case and set up warning signs to fulfill his duty of care for safety. Accordingly, according to the principle of fairness and the actual situation of the case, the court of first instance decided that it was not improper for the appellee to share 10% of the civil liability for Xiaoyang's drowning. The court rejected the appeal and upheld the original judgment.