Child Injured on Bouncy Castle: Court Awards CNY 35,057 in Personal Injury Case
Child Injured on Bouncy Castle: Court Awards CNY 35,057 in Personal Injury Case
Case Overview
A court in Eastern China ruled that the operator of a children’s inflatable bouncy castle must pay 80 percent of damages after a six-year-old girl fell and broke her arm while playing. The operator was found liable for failing to provide adequate supervision in an environment where parents were not allowed entry. The child’s parents were also found partially responsible for failing to supervise adequately. The total compensation awarded was 35,057.92 yuan.
Case Background and Facts
On the evening of July 14, 2010, a young girl identified as Ms. Wang visited an inflatable bouncy castle called Mickey Castle, operated by Mr. Fan at a commercial area in Eastern China. Her father paid a three-yuan entrance fee and waited outside because the facility did not allow adults to enter. Around 9:00 PM, while playing inside the bouncy castle, the girl fell and sustained a fracture to her left elbow. Her father immediately took her to a local hospital for treatment. The next day, he filed a police report. Police records confirmed that Mr. Fan acknowledged the injury occurred at his facility and offered to pay part of the medical costs, but the parties could not reach a settlement.
Court Proceedings and Evidence
The plaintiff filed a lawsuit on August 17, 2010, seeking 50,000 yuan in damages from three defendants: Mr. Fan as the operator, and two companies alleged to be the landlord and manager of the premises. The court held three public hearings. Evidence presented included police records, medical records, expense receipts, a forensic medical evaluation, and payment receipts showing Mr. Fan paid property management fees and electricity charges to one of the corporate defendants. The forensic evaluation confirmed the child suffered a Level 10 disability, required 90 days of nursing care by one person, and incurred medical expenses of 920.40 yuan, nursing fees of 4,500 yuan, disability compensation of 35,622 yuan, appraisal fees of 1,180 yuan, transportation costs of 200 yuan, and other miscellaneous fees.
Court Findings and Judgment
The court found Mr. Fan, as the operator of a children’s amusement facility, had a duty of care higher than the ordinary standard applicable to adults. Because the bouncy castle did not permit parents to enter, and Mr. Fan failed to assign staff to supervise children inside, the facility had a safety defect. The operator did not warn of potential dangers or provide safety instructions. The court held that this failure directly caused the child’s injury. However, the child’s father, who waited outside, also failed to exercise adequate supervision and monitoring, constituting contributory negligence. The court allocated 80 percent liability to Mr. Fan and 20 percent to the parents. The court rejected claims against the two corporate defendants, finding no evidence that the premises or utilities they provided were defective, and no causal link between their role as landlord and the injury. The court ordered Mr. Fan to pay 34,057.92 yuan (80 percent of 42,572.40 yuan in economic losses) plus 1,000 yuan in emotional distress damages, totaling 35,057.92 yuan.
Key Legal Principles
The court applied the principle that commercial operators of children’s entertainment facilities bear a heightened duty of care. Under relevant tort law, operators must proactively prevent foreseeable harm, especially when the facility design prevents parental supervision. Contributory negligence reduces damages when a guardian fails to fulfill their supervisory obligations. Landlords or property managers are not automatically liable for injuries occurring on leased premises unless they contributed to the unsafe condition or had a direct duty to prevent the harm.
Practical Insights
This case illustrates that operators of children’s amusement facilities must provide active supervision when parents are excluded from the play area. Simply collecting fees and allowing unsupervised play creates significant liability exposure. For parents, this case reinforces the importance of maintaining visual and physical proximity to young children even in seemingly safe environments. Courts will reduce compensation when guardians fail to exercise reasonable oversight. Property owners who merely provide space and utilities without controlling operations are generally not liable for injuries caused by tenant negligence.
Legal References
Tort Law of the People’s Republic of China, Article 37 (duty of care for public场所 operators)
Supreme Peoples Court Interpretation on Compensation for Personal Injury, Articles 18, 19, 21, 22, 25 (damages for emotional distress, medical expenses, nursing care, transportation, and disability)
Civil Procedure Law of the Peoples Republic of China (2007), Article 130 (default judgment)
Disclaimer
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified attorney for specific legal matters.