On Responsibility Of Minors’ Infringement

Minors’ infringement refers to an act that people under the age of18with no capacity for civil conduct or limited capacity for civil conduct infringe upon others’civil rights and lead to a result that he/she himself/herself or subject shouldering education and supervision responsibility bear the adverse legal consequences. The issue on minors’ capacity for tort liability, the application of fair responsibility as exceptions in minors’infringement cases and the responsibility outside the minors’ own responsibility are three problems which must be faced when two legal systems researched on the minors’infringement. On the issue of minors’ capacity for tort liability, most countries of civil law system recognized the particularity of minors and took the age as a standard to distinguish minors’ capacity for tort liability. Countries of common law made no provision for this. The law in civil law system countries ordered that minor’ parents shouldered the infringement responsibility on their minor children’ infringement act, while the common law system paid more attention on the principle of person concerned with all faults. The vicarious responsibility of guardians was not approved by common law system.Capacity for tort liability is premise that minor takes his/her own responsibility in cases of minors’ infringements. Our country took mixed standard to judge minors’ capacity for tort liability. The situation of the minor shouldering his/her own responsibility includes two circumstances that minor owns independent property and minor is regarded as a person with full capacity for civil conduct. The attribute of guardian’s responsibility is vicarious responsibility, and theoretical basis is guardianship theory. Principle of culpability on guardians is relative fault presumption rule. Responsibility type of guardians includes full liability, mitigated liability and supplementary liability. The relationship between educational institutions and students is statutory educational management relations. However, the nature of responsibility which educational institutions shoulder in minors’infringements is responsibility of the security obligations which arise because of violating statutory education management relations. When attributing to educational institutions, doctrine of fault presumption rule and fault liability principle are applied. Theoretically, commissioned guardianship in our country can be divided into two situations:legal guardian entrusts others with his own custodial role and parents entrust others as their own children’s guardians. In commissioned guardianship, tort liability commitments caused by person under guardianship consist of agreed responsibility and non-agreed responsibilities.When shouldering the three different responsibilities, the relationship between the responsibility of minors and legal guardian responsibility is complementary and alternative. The responsibility relationship between educational institutions and the previous two responsibilities is parallel. Responsibility of commissioned guardian is supplement of the legal guardian responsibility.