Compensation Capacity of Persons from 15 Years Old to Under 18 Years Old

compensation for their children. Although the under 15 year old has not yet returned to

house. But according to the provisions of Clause 3, Article 621, as long as they can prove that they are not at fault, even if a person under 15 years old is studying at school and causes damage, their parents must compensate.

2.2.2. Compensation capacity of persons from 15 years old to under 18 years old

People from 15 years old to under 18 years old are also minors, but when deciding on liability for compensation for damages, this is a special case for minors. The reason for this is that

Because although they are of the same age as minors, the responsibility is determined differently.

Compensation for damages of people under 15 years old is different from that of people from 15 to under 18 years old. If a person under 15 years old causes damage, the responsibility for compensation will belong to their parents. The law clearly stipulates that "Parents must

compensation for damages" but people from 15 years old to under 18 years old who cause

In case of damage, the law stipulates that "Compensation must be made with one's own property; if there is not enough property to compensate, the parents must compensate with their own property."

"So, in this case, the main responsibility belongs to the person causing the damage, not their parents. Only when the person causing the damage does not have enough assets to compensate, will the responsibility of their parents arise.

The responsibility to compensate for damages of persons aged 15 to under 18 years old seems to be the opposite of the responsibility to compensate for damages caused by persons under 15 years old. The reason why the law stipulates the responsibility to compensate for damages for persons aged 15 to under 18 years old is because: Although they are minors and do not have full civil capacity, they are more developed in terms of awareness than persons under 15 years old. On the other hand, persons aged 15 to under 18 years old, according to the provisions of the Labor Law, can participate in labor legal relations. Therefore, they can generate income and have their own property, so they can fulfill their responsibility to compensate for damages.

Although the primary responsibility lies with the person causing the damage,

However, in terms of full civil capacity, they do not have it, so they need someone to represent them in establishing and carrying out civil transactions. Therefore, the parents of the person causing the damage cannot completely eliminate their responsibility. They have the obligation to compensate their child for damage when he causes damage to another person without having property or not having enough property to compensate.

Determining the responsibility for compensation is first and foremost the primary responsibility of the person who caused the damage, which is specifically proven by the practice of trying cases.

Example: Case

criminal judgment

trial

the devices

fox Ngo Duy Thong was born on

September 2, 1990; Tran Ngon Tuan born April 21, 1990; Dao Khanh Hoang born January 20, 1992; Tran Huy Hoang born June 19, 1992; Vu Duc Dai born November 15, 1992; Hoang Ngoc Chien born October 10, 1992 (all defendants have

permanent residence registration in Hai Phong city) for murder and robbery of Hai Phong City People's Court (in this example, only the murder part is mentioned without the robbery part).

The contents of the case are as follows:

Regarding the murder on March 2, 2007: Around 9:00 p.m. on March 2, 2007

Tran Ngon Tuan, Hoang Ngoc Chien, Vu Duc Dai, Tran Huy Hoang, Ngo Duy Thong, Dao Khanh Hoang were sitting and playing on the sidewalk of Le Hong Phong Street, Dong Khe Ward, Ngo Quyen District when Nguyen Anh Tuan and his friends passed by on their bicycles. Thong picked up a rock and threw it at Tuan. Tuan cursed Thong back. Then Thong invited his friends to chase Tuan. After going 100 meters, Thong met Huy (also a friend of Thong) riding a bicycle in the opposite direction. Thong told Huy to turn around and chase and block Tuan's group. Huy agreed. Huy used his bicycle to catch up with Tuan's group and asked Tuan and his friends to stop. When they got close to Tuan's group, Tuan and Huy Hoang jumped off their bicycles. Tuan ran to the sidewalk and picked up two bricks. Khanh Hoang and Huy blocked Tuan's bicycle, causing Tuan's bicycle to fall over. Khanh Hoang ran to grab Tuan and together with Huy Hoang punched Tuan in the face and body. Tuan used a brick to hit Tuan's right temple. At that time, Chien drove Thong almost to Tuan's place, Thong told Chien to go to Phuong Chi's shop to "get something". When they got there, Chien stopped the car and Thong ran into the vacant lot to get an iron pipe about 1 meter long and 2.5 cm in diameter. Then Thong ran across the median strip to where Tuan was being beaten and used both hands to hit Tuan on the right side of the head, causing Tuan to fall onto the grass. Then Dai ran over and grabbed the iron pipe and hit Tuan's hand. Thong grabbed the iron pipe and was about to hit him again when Huy

said that in Tuan's group of friends there was someone they knew so they didn't fight anymore.

Chien also rode his bike to the scene of the fight but did not act. After that, both

When they returned, Nguyen Anh Tuan was taken to the emergency room but died.

In forensic examination report No. 130/PY 2007 dated March 8, 2007 of the organization

Hai Phong City forensic examination concluded: "Victim Nguyen Anh

Tuan was

right frontal lobe injury causing rupture

skull bone, bleeding

in the skull leading to death.

In the first instance criminal judgment 138/2007 dated September 25, 2007 of the court of first instance

The judge declared

the devices

Reported by Ngo Duy Thong, Tran Ngon Tuan, Dao Khanh

Hoang, Tran Huy Hoang, Vu Duc Dai, Hoang Ngoc Chien are co-defendants of murder and apply the provisions of the Penal Code to decide the punishment for the defendants. In addition to the criminal liability that the defendants must bear, based on Articles 42 of the Penal Code and Article 610 of the 2005 Civil Code,

The defendant must jointly compensate Mr. Nguyen Viet Hiep (father of

Nguyen Anh Tuan) the amount is 35,000,000 VND, of which: Ngo Duy Thong compensates 3,167,000 VND; Tran Ngon Tuan compensates 5,167,000 VND; Dao Khanh Hoang compensates 5,167,000 VND; the rest belongs to the other defendants.

Here we only talk about the compensation of the three defendants mentioned above because when implementing

acts causing damage Ngo Duy Thong is only 16 years and 6 months old; Tran Ngon Tuan is 16 years and 10 months old; Dao Khanh Hoang is 15 years and 1 month and 12 days old. According to the regulations of

Clause 2, Article 606 of the 2005 Civil Code “People from

15 to less than 15

18 years old cause

"If there is damage, compensation must be made with one's own property." Specifically, here, the Court has ruled that the responsibility for compensation belongs to Thong, Tuan, and Khanh Hoang.

Like

So, clearly they are all minors but in this case

sentence of

Nguyen Tuan Anh (presented in section 2.2.1) because Tuan Anh is under 15 years old,

The person whose name must be on the judgment to be responsible for compensation is Mr.

Nguyen Van Le, father

Tuan Anh's case is still in progress.

This case is under the name of the person

The people who caused the damage are responsible for compensating for the damage, not their parents. The parents of the person who caused the damage are only responsible for compensating for the damage.

must compensate if the property of the person causing the damage is not enough to compensate or the person causing the damage has no property to compensate.

to compensate

The regulation of liability for compensation for damage caused by persons from fifteen years of age to under eighteen years of age is the primary and main responsibility.

of the person causing the damage and if the person causing the damage is insufficient or

If there is no property to compensate, the parents must compensate with their property.

I (duty)

required by parents) will

be specifically identified

body

Whose responsibility is it in the event that when the court decides on the responsibility for compensation for damages, neither the person causing the damage nor their parents are involved?

assets to

perform duty

compensation. If this happens then

Minors from fifteen to under eighteen years of age who cause damage must be responsible for compensation when they have property because of responsibility.

The first compensation belongs to them. However, according to the provisions of Article 606

Clause 2: Because the obligation to compensate for the remaining damage of a person from 15 to under 18 years old of the parents is a mandatory obligation, if currently both their children and themselves do not have enough assets to compensate, then whoever has assets first will use that asset to compensate the damaged person to best ensure the rights of the damaged person.

2.3. The capacity of the person under guardianship to compensate for damages

Guardianship is a matter of practical significance in social life. The 2005 Civil Code of our country stipulates quite fully and in detail: the subject of guardianship, the guardian, the rights and obligations of the guardian. However, an important obligation of the guardian, the responsibility to compensate for property damage caused by the illegal acts of the person under guardianship, is not stipulated in this section. Is the guardian responsible for compensating for property damage caused by the person under his/her guardianship in all cases? And how is the compensation done?

Article 58 of the 2005 Civil Code stipulates that "Guardianship is the responsibility of individuals and organizations"

(hereinafter referred to as the guardian) as prescribed by law or appointed to

to take care of and protect the legitimate rights and interests of people

minors, people lacking civil capacity (hereinafter referred to as

exercise rights and obligations

by law to

protect

benefits for

ward, and at the same time they

also possible

have to suffer the consequences

adverse property consequences while performing one's guardianship, including the responsibility to compensate for damages caused to others by the person under one's guardianship's illegal acts.

2.3.1. In case the person under guardianship suffers damage

is a minor causing

According to the law, "minors who no longer have parents, whose parents cannot be identified, or whose parents have both lost civil act capacity, have limited civil act capacity, or whose rights have been restricted by the Court"

parents

or father, mother

insufficient

conditions for care and education of the unborn

In case the parents of minors fall into the following cases:

In the case specified in Point a, Clause 2, Article 58 of the 2005 Civil Code, the liability for compensation is

Damages will be made as follows:

First of all, it is the responsibility of the eldest brother or sister who has reached adulthood and is qualified to be a guardian. If the eldest brother or sister is not qualified to be a guardian,

guardian, the next adult must be the guardian.

In case there is no brother or sister or the brother or sister is not qualified to be a guardian, the paternal or maternal grandparents shall be the guardian. If these people

The above is not available or is not sufficient.

conditions for

be a guardian

then you,

Uncles, aunts, and uncles are guardians. All of the above persons are natural guardians of minors. And if there is no natural guardian, a guardian must be appointed. However, whether it is a natural guardian or an appointed guardian, they have the right to use the personal property of the person under guardianship to compensate for damages caused by the illegal acts of the person under guardianship. Only in cases where the person under guardianship has no property or does not have enough property to compensate, the guardian must use his own property to compensate. Allow the guardian to use the property of the person under guardianship

household to

compensation if the guardian

causing reasonable harm is intended

encourage guardianship, especially for elected guardians. And the regulation

designated for guardianship

first used

use of property of the person being

Guardianship for compensation is a difference from compensation for damage caused by minors under 15 years old who still have parents, in this case

The first and main responsibility belongs to

parents

of people

Minors under 15 years old. Compensation for damage caused by a minor under guardianship is similar to the case of a minor from 15 years old to under 18 years old causing damage, but the difference is that in the case of a person under guardianship causing damage, the responsibility belongs to the guardian, while a minor from 15 years old to under 18 years old causing damage, the primary responsibility belongs to them first, then if they do not have enough assets to compensate, then the property of their parents will be taken. So, suppose a minor from 15 years old to under 18 years old who is under guardianship causes damage, then who will be primarily responsible? Article 606, Clause 3 of the Civil Code generally stipulates that minors under guardianship cause damage to others without any age distinction, as in the case of a minor who causes damage but still has parents. According to this provision, the responsibility belongs to the person under guardianship, the only difference is that they are first allowed to take the property.

of the person causing the damage to compensate, but if this person has no assets or insufficient assets to compensate, the responsibility belongs to them. There is something unsatisfactory in the case of compensation for damage caused by a minor from 15 years old to under 18 years old when this person is in two different positions: one is still a parent, two is they are under the supervision of another person.

Another difference when it comes to the regulation of liability for damages

If I am not at fault in the guardianship, I do not have to take the property.

" I came out to compensate " so in this case who will be responsible for compensation? The person under guardianship will have to continue to compensate when there is property