The ruling reduces legal risk for schools while reaffirming their duties in supervision, safety education, and preventing bullying.
Amid growing confusion over campus liability, China’s top court has ruled that schools are not automatically responsible for student injuries if they have met their duties in education and safety management.
In an effort to provide clearer legal standards, the Supreme People’s Court on Wednesday released six model civil cases involving school-related disputes, outlining how liability should be determined when injuries occur on campus.
Chinese law requires schools to supervise and protect students during school hours. But in recent years, vague liability standards have prompted many schools to adopt overly cautious measures — from shortening breaks to limiting outdoor play — in an effort to avoid legal disputes.
In one case, a 12-year-old student surnamed Zhao fell down a staircase after school, suffering dental and facial injuries. His family sought 80,000 yuan (about $11,000) in damages, arguing the school had failed in its duty of care.
A local court rejected the claim, noting that the school had provided weekly safety lessons, posted warning signs near the stairs, and promptly arranged medical care while notifying the parents. It ruled that the school had fulfilled its legal responsibilities.
“In campus injury cases, determining liability should not be based solely on whether the accident occurred on school grounds,” the Supreme People’s Court stated. “Factors like the school’s safety education efforts, infrastructure warnings, and post-incident responses should all be considered.”
In another case, two 7-year-old boys were playing when one accidentally pushed the other, causing him to fall and break several teeth. The injured child’s family sued both the school and the classmate.
The court found the child who caused the injury liable to pay 55% of the compensation, amounting to 8,000 yuan out of the 15,000 yuan the plaintiff requested for medical treatment. It also ruled that the school bore no liability, citing its safety protocols, teacher supervision during school hours, and staff patrols in the area where the incident occurred.
Chinese law presumes fault liability for institutions supervising children under 8 years old, given their limited ability to protect themselves. But the top court emphasized that this does not mean schools bear unlimited responsibility.
“If a school has fulfilled its duties in safety education, preventative measures, supervision, and facilities management, courts should rule that it bears no liability,” the top court clarified. It also ruled that schools are not responsible for injuries sustained during voluntary participation in risky activities, such as football, provided appropriate safety training and safeguards are in place.
The clarification is intended to ease pressure on schools and encourage them to allow students more freedom during breaks without fear of legal repercussions for accidents.
However, the court drew a firm line on bullying, stating that schools must bear responsibility when they fail to prevent or intervene in violent incidents due to inadequate supervision or management.
In one case, an eighth-grade student surnamed Jiang punched a classmate, Wang, during an argument, then attacked another student, Zhang, who tried to intervene. Zhang suffered serious eye injuries, later classified as a level-10 disability, the lowest classification for disability severity.
A local court held Jiang’s parents 70% responsible, but assigned 30% of the liability to the school, citing inadequate supervision and weak campus management at the time of the incident.
“School bullying can cause serious harm to minors’ physical and mental health,” the top court underscored. “As key actors in preventing violence, schools must build strict supervision and reporting mechanisms.”
The court also affirmed that teachers may use reasonable verbal discipline to maintain classroom order. While parents remain primarily responsible for their children’s well-being, the court emphasized that their oversight of school management must be lawful and not infringe on others’ rights or reputations.
Editor: Apurva.
(Header image: VCG)