[2] Compiled from: Shandong High Court
 
Case review
One day in 2022, in a bustling shopping mall, a child's crying suddenly rang out. People turned to see a toddler about two years old lying face down on the ground, chin touching the floor with traces of blood. Nearby, a shopping cart lay overturned, its wheels still spinning slowly.

 
 

Ms. Zhang, looking panicked, quickly crouched down to lift the child. Mall security and service staff gathered around, helping her support the child and picking up scattered personal items. Subsequently, mall and supermarket staff accompanied Ms. Zhang and the child to the hospital for treatment.
According to mall surveillance footage and Ms. Zhang's recollection, she had placed the child at the front of the shopping cart, while her handbag was placed in the folding seat meant for the child. She also failed to hold the cart handle as instructed. When taking the escalator from the first floor to the basement level, the shopping cart tipped over.
 
[1] Ms. Zhang and the management of the shopping mall and supermarket had a significant dispute over who should bear responsibility for the child's injury. The mall management argued that, as the escalator operator, the mall had fulfilled its duty of regular maintenance, as the escalator was operating normally at the time, and warning signs such as notices and reminders were posted around the escalator; after the child was injured, staff also accompanied the child to the hospital for treatment. Therefore, the mall had fulfilled its security obligation within a reasonable scope. The supermarket management similarly argued that safety instruction icons were affixed to the shopping cart provided to Ms. Zhang, fulfilling its security obligation within a reasonable scope. Ms. Zhang disagreed, emphasizing that the mall and supermarket did not provide a child shopping cart and no staff were present to give warnings, and demanded compensation for economic losses from the mall and supermarket management.
 
 
[1] Court Opinion
[2] As the party responsible for security obligations, the property management should ensure that facilities within the managed premises are usable, and for potential safety hazards, it should provide explanations, warnings, and other reminders to consumers to prevent accidents.
 
[3] Parents, as guardians of minor children, are legally obligated to fulfill guardianship duties, protecting the personal rights, property rights, and other lawful interests of the minors under their care. Failure to fulfill guardianship duties shall result in adverse legal liability. Specifically, parents' guardianship responsibilities mainly include two parts: first, if parents intentionally or negligently cause harm to the minor children under their guardianship, they shall bear corresponding legal liability; second, if minor children cause harm to the state, collectives, or others, the guardians shall bear corresponding legal liability on their behalf.
 
[4] In this case, the mall and supermarket management had fulfilled their security obligations within a reasonable scope. Ms. Zhang, as the child's guardian, failed to use the shopping cart in accordance with safety instruction signs, failed to fulfill her protection and guardianship duties and reasonable care obligations, which was the cause of the accident. As the guardian, she should bear responsibility for the accident.
 
 
Civil Code of the People's Republic of China
[5] Article 34, Paragraph 3 
If a guardian fails to perform guardianship duties or infringes upon the lawful rights and interests of the ward, the guardian shall bear legal liability.
 
[4] Article 1198 
[5] Operators, managers of business premises such as hotels, shopping malls, banks, stations, airports, sports venues, entertainment venues, or organizers of mass activities, who fail to fulfill their safety guarantee obligations, causing harm to others, shall bear tort liability.
If harm is caused to another person by the act of a third party, the third party shall bear tort liability; if the business operator, manager, or organizer fails to fulfill the duty of security, they shall bear corresponding supplementary liability. After bearing supplementary liability, the business operator, manager, or organizer may seek recourse from the third party.
 
 
[1] The author's perspective
[6] The property's security obligation is a layer of protection provided by law to customers, but this does not mean that the property bears full responsibility once an accident occurs. In other words, if the property takes proper security measures and posts warning signs, it can effectively avoid unnecessary risks.

Additionally, as guardians of their children, parents serve as a protective umbrella for minors and have a duty of supervision. If, due to their own intent or negligence, a child is injured or their interests are harmed, from a legal perspective, parents must also bear corresponding responsibility. Therefore, as guardians, they should carefully fulfill their custodial duties.