Elementary school student falls at indoor amusement facility, owner acknowledged liability for compensation

(Suwon = Yonhap News) Reporter Kwon Jun-woo = If an elementary school student falls and gets injured while playing on a sculpture at an indoor amusement facility recommended for ages 7 and under, the court ruled that the business owner, who neglected protective measures and age control, is also responsible for some compensation.

According to the legal community on the 20th, Suwon District Court Civil Affairs 14 Judge Lee Do-kyung ruled that some of the plaintiffs lost in the lawsuit filed by the indoor playground business owner against the victim child and his mother to confirm the absence of debt and the victim's counterclaim for damages.

Accordingly, the business owner was ordered to pay 1039,559 won to the victim child and 2.5 million won to the mother.

The accident occurred in April 2023 at a free children's play facility in a large shopping mall in Gwonseon-gu, Suwon-si, Gyeonggi-do.

The victim, who was an elementary school student at the time, visited a playground with her mother and fell to the floor while playing on a baseball cap-shaped sculpture.

In this accident, the child's wrist bones were severely broken and he had to undergo major surgery, including pin fixation.

The place where the accident occurred was a free, open play facility recommended for use by children under 7 years of age.

There was a sign posted at the entrance to the facility saying, 'Elementary school students should refrain from entering and must be accompanied by a guardian.' However, strict age control for entry was not implemented, so the victim child also entered without any particular restraint.

The baseball cap-shaped sculpture in question was more than 1m high and had a steep slope from the top to the floor.

The business owner filed this lawsuit (confirmation of non-existence of debt), claiming that it is not liable for compensation, citing age restrictions and rules for accompanying a guardian at the entrance to the facility.

However, the court did not accept the business owner's argument, pointing out poor safety management at the site.

The sign at the entrance to the facility alone cannot be considered as fulfilling the duty to prevent danger.

There were no cautions or warnings not to climb anywhere around the actual sculpture, and although there was a designated safety manager on paper, it was found that he was often absent.

Other employees who manufactured and sold drinks at the cafe connected to the facility were not enough to control the site.

Judge Lee acknowledged liability for compensation, saying, "The sculpture in question did not have a warning sign even though there was a risk of falling, and age control of children entering and exiting and safety management by managers were not sufficiently implemented," and "the business owner did not fulfill his obligation to take protective measures required by social norms in proportion to the risk of the facility."

However, the court limited the employer's liability to 40% of the total damage, taking into account the violation of the duty of protection and supervision of the mother of the victim child.

Judge Lee stated the reason for limiting liability, saying, "Although rules were posted at the entrance telling elementary school students to refrain from entering and to pay attention to safety under the responsibility of their guardians, the guardians were not properly restrained or managed."