The Supreme Court has ruled that a daycare center director bears professional negligence liability after a one-year-old child, who wandered out of the director's office alone during an enrollment consultation, fell into a pot of hot food in the kitchen and was injured.

According to the legal community on Thursday, the Supreme Court's Second Division (Presiding Justice Uhm Sang-phil) overturned a lower court's acquittal of the daycare director, surnamed A, who had been indicted on charges of professional negligence resulting in injury, and sent the case back to the Daejeon District Court.

The incident occurred in May 2023 when the mother of a one-year-old toddler, B, visited a daycare center in South Chungcheong Province run by A for an enrollment consultation.

As child B kept trying to leave the director's office, Director A told the mother, "The daycare is safe and there are teachers outside, so let the child freely explore the facility," and then brought the child out of the office.

Afterwards, A told childcare teachers who were conducting classes in the living room to "keep an eye on the child," and returned to the office with the mother for the consultation.

However, while wandering around the interior of the daycare alone, child B entered the kitchen—where the door was left unlocked—and fell near a pot of hot yukgaejang (spicy beef soup) placed on the floor, resulting in severe burns over the child's entire body.

The prosecutors indicted A on charges of professional negligence resulting in injury, alongside a cook who left the pot lid open on the kitchen floor and a childcare teacher who failed to lock the kitchen door after using it.

The prosecution argued that despite having a professional duty of care as a daycare director to take every possible measure to prevent risks to infants and toddlers, A failed to assign a specific childcare teacher to look after child B, instead leaving the child in the care of unspecified teachers.

The first-instance court found all three defendants guilty, but the second-instance court overturned the ruling and acquitted them.

The lower appellate court reasoned that the professional duty to designate and assign childcare teachers in advance does not extend to children who have not yet completed the enrollment process.

Furthermore, the court held that since the direct causes of the accident lay with the cook and the childcare teacher, even if Director A had breached a duty of care, there was no causal relationship between the breach and the accident.

The Supreme Court reached a different conclusion.

Considering the intent of the Infant Care Act, the Supreme Court established the legal principle that "whether a specific infant falls under the protection target of a daycare center must be determined based on whether the center has substantially assumed the obligation to protect that infant."

Regarding this case, the court stated, "Even though the victimized child was not yet officially enrolled at the time of the accident, the defendant took over the child visiting for enrollment from the guardian and actively and substantially assumed the obligation of protection, at least within the childcare area of the facility. Therefore, the victimized child must be deemed a target of protection by the daycare center."

The Supreme Court also noted that the scope of necessary measures for protecting the life and safety of infants and preventing hazards "must be determined reasonably by comprehensively considering the child's age and developmental stage."

Consequently, the court ruled that A had a professional duty of care to ensure that protection and monitoring could realistically take place—such as by designating and assigning a specific childcare teacher—when sending a one-year-old child out into the daycare's living room.

The Supreme Court stated, "As long as it is recognized that the accident occurred due to the defendant's breach of professional duty of care, the concurrent professional negligence of the cook and the childcare teacher does not sever the proximate causal relationship between the defendant's breach and the accident," thus sending the case back to the lower court with a guilty intent.

The cook and the childcare teacher, who were indicted alongside A, were sentenced to six months in prison with one year of probation in the first trial and their sentences became final as they did not appeal.

(Photo: Yonhap News)