[Direct answer]They have to pay compensation, but they can pay less. If a person without civil capacity or a person with limited civil capacity causes damage to others, the guardian shall bear the tort liability—this is "substitute liability", which does not require the guardian to be at fault; but if the guardian fulfills his duty of guardianship, his tort liability may be reduced. Note that it's "reduced" rather than "exempted", unless the victim has fault or there is a third-party liability sharing.

I. Problem background and typical scenarios

In a residential community, two children were chasing and playing around. One child pushed the other one down, causing a fracture. The parent of the injured child demanded full compensation, while the other parent protested, "I was watching them the whole time and repeatedly educating them. Why should I pay for everything?" The scenario of parents being held accountable even though they fulfilled their supervisory duties best highlights the complexity of understanding legal rules. The essence of supervisory responsibility is vicarious liability, and fulfilling one's duty only serves as a mitigating factor, not a shield for exemption from liability.

II. Key points of contention

Firstly, the attribution nature of the guardian's liability: whether it is a vicarious liability or a fault-based liability. Secondly, the standard for determining whether the guardian has fulfilled his/her duties. Thirdly, how to determine the proportion of mitigation. Fourthly, the overlap between the victim's own fault and the liability of third parties such as schools.

III. Professional analysis by Henglue Lawyers

The first layer is the liability logic: The guardian's responsibility is a typical substitute liability - the guardian is responsible for the risks caused by the guardian's incapacity to identify and control the guardian's actions, and the Civil Code Article 1188 clearly stipulates that the guardian shall bear tort liability; whether the guardian himself has fault is not a prerequisite for liability, but only affects the degree of liability. The second layer is the determination of "fulfilling guardianship duties": Judicial practice shows that - whether daily education is in place (teaching and repeatedly emphasizing safety rules), whether supervision at the time of the incident is reasonable (the higher the age, the higher the supervision density requirements), and whether post-incident handling is timely (sending to the hospital, reporting the case, and cooperating). In the case of children left in the care of grandparents or temporarily entrusted caregivers, the entrusted caregivers are not necessarily exempt from liability, and the guardian's responsibility still lies with them. If the entrusted caregivers have fault, they shall bear corresponding liability. The third layer is the reduction of liability: For cases where there is sufficient evidence of due diligence, the reduction is typically 20% to 50%. If the victim has fault, the liability is reduced according to the rule of offsetting fault. After the two are combined, the actual burden on the guardian may be less than half - but there are almost no cases of zero compensation, because the bottom line of substitute liability is to compensate the victim, which is the foundation of the system. The fourth layer is the superposition of multiple responsibilities: Where a person with limited capacity for civil conduct causes harm to others or suffers harm during their study and life in schools or kindergartens, the school shall bear corresponding responsibility (Articles 120 and 121 of the Civil Code); where a person without capacity for civil conduct suffers personal harm in kindergartens or schools, it is presumed that the institution is at fault - if a child is injured in a school fight, the compensation liability shall be allocated between the guardian and the school according to the degree of fault, neither of which shall bear the entire liability nor shift it to the other party. The fifth layer is the practical arrangement of compensation sources: Where the guardian has personal property, the compensation shall be paid from his/her personal property first, and the insufficient part shall be compensated by the guardian - the New Year's money and gift property under the minor's name shall be paid in advance; the reduced liability portion of the guardian who has fulfilled his/her obligations is essentially a risk allocation to the victim. When negotiating, putting the reasons for reduced liability on the table is more conducive to reaching a settlement than refusing to compensate.

IV. Practical suggestions and legal basis

The first step is to secure evidence of due diligence: safety education records, surveillance footage from the scene of the incident, and witness statements. The second step is to identify the victim's fault: the proportion of contributory factors such as pursuit and provocation. The third step is to investigate the liability of third parties: whether the school, property management company, or venue manager failed to fulfill their obligations. The fourth step is to claim mitigation rather than invoke a complete defense of exemption. The main legal basis: Articles 1188, 1189, 1200, 1201, and 1173 of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China; the specific application shall be subject to the currently effective regulations.

5. Henglu Law Firm's Reminder

There are three key points regarding guardians' responsibilities: When children cause trouble, guardians bear the responsibility, which is a substitute liability that cannot be disputed; fulfilling one's duties can reduce liability, but it's not a shield against liability. The extent of the reduction depends on the evidence; when the victim's own fault overlaps with the institution's responsibility, the compensation should be calculated in layers. For disputes involving minors' infringements, the parties concerned can resort to legal channels to resolve the matter.Personal injury and medical disputesThe service provides a comprehensive solution, which can be applied to campus liability accidentsSpecial servicesFor reference, you can refer to the plate regarding the execution of compensation negotiationsCreditor's rights and debts, and enforcementFor any questions regarding the arrangement of family property risks, please feel free to consult us.Financial capital and cross-border transactions involving foreign entitiesTeam.

VI. Frequently Asked Questions

Q1: I've already been very strict with them. Why should I still compensate them?

The guardian's responsibility is a substitute responsibility, which does not presuppose the guardian's fault; fulfilling one's duty can only reduce the proportion of responsibility, but cannot exempt it, unless the damage is entirely caused by the victim's intentional act.

Q2: How much can it reduce?

For cases where the defendant's responsibility is fully proven, the general mitigation rate is 20% to 50%. If the victim is at fault, the mitigation rate will be further reduced. The specific mitigation rate will be determined by the court based on a comprehensive assessment of all relevant factors.

Q3: Who will compensate for the injury caused by a child to a classmate at school?

The guardian shall bear the liability for infringement, and the school shall bear corresponding responsibility for failing to fulfill its duty of education management. The liability shall be allocated according to the proportion of fault, rather than a mutual shirking of responsibility.

Q4: Should the child's lucky money be used to make compensation first?

If the ward has his/her own property, the compensation shall be paid from his/her own property first, and the shortage shall be compensated by the guardian; the lucky money also belongs to the child's gifted property, and there is no exception to this rule.

Q5: If I temporarily entrust a neighbor to take care of my child and something happens, who will compensate for the damages?

The guardian's responsibilities remain unchanged; the entrusted caregiver who is at fault shall bear corresponding responsibilities, and the guardian may recover compensation from the entrusted caregiver who is at fault after making compensation according to the entrustment relationship.

The above Q&A is mainly based on judicial practice in the Beijing area. There may be differences in the adjudication guidelines in different regions. It is recommended to consult a professional lawyer based on the specific circumstances of the case.

If you are facing similar problems, it is recommended that you consult a professional lawyer as soon as possible with the evidence materials, so as to avoid missing the statutory time limit. →Personal injury legal services·Beijing Henglu Law Firm

Disclaimer: This article is compiled based on the current effective laws and regulations and public adjudication rules, and is for general reference only. It does not constitute a formal legal opinion on specific cases. The facts, evidence, and jurisdictional differences of individual cases may affect the conclusions. In case of disputes, please consult a practicing lawyer in time.