Respected judge, judge:

According to the provisions of the Civil Procedure Law of our country, I according to the appellate populationXXXThe principal, as the appeal of the appellant's agent ad litem, in this case the second instance proceedings according to law. According to the court, to put forward the following opinions to the court for the agency, in this case and review.

One, the court of first instance violates the objective fact, subjective, ascertaining the facts wrong, division of responsibility for serious injustice

　　1 overthrow, arbitrary two traffic accident responsibility confirmation groundless
According to "road traffic safety law", the traffic accident report as evidence of a traffic accident. If the parties to the traffic accident the objection, the court should be based on the identification of the fact as the basis, to determine the responsibility for compensation; if there is no traffic accident report, the court shall ascertain the facts, identify the responsibility for compensation; if the parties to the traffic accident no objection, the court can be used as evidence, in order to determine the liability of the parties. Can be seen from the above provisions, legally court compensation liability in traffic accident responsibility book made outside the parties to the accident have objection. In this case, the plaintiff and defendant in the first accident were no objection (because the first accident is the plaintiff prosecution on the basis of), and the plaintiff did not give evidence to overthrow the first accident (second accident report authenticity, legitimacy, relevance can't be incredibly, not enough to reverse the first accident). In addition, according to the rules of evidence, the parties concerned shall provide evidence to prove its authenticity, legitimacy and relevance, the court should be to have the nature of evidence as the basis that the facts of the case, in this case a trial the plaintiff has filed a certificate to prove its claims two conflict, the two copies of that book only and will have a true and lawful. Second, make the subject is not the accident investigation, the traffic police at the scene, and do not conform to the traffic accident processing procedures, the authenticity and legitimacy are in doubt, then according to the rules of evidence, the evidence should not be adopted, should be the first to recognize the book as the basis of judging. However, the court of first instance has approved second responsibility confirmation, and use it as the overthrow of the first confirmation basis, this is clearly contrary to the basic principles of evidence. Therefore, the court also should be based on the first accident to divide the responsibilities of both parties.
More incomprehensible is, the court of first instance in recognition of the second copies of that book, and not as the basis that the facts of the case to its. Since the second to overthrow the first, then the premise is second copies must be real, legitimate; now that the authenticity and legitimacy of second, then it should be used as a basis for. However, according to the court of first instance of logic, is a non real legal confirmation to deny the validity of another, and this is clearly contrary to the basic logic rules.
At the same time, the court of first instance and the administrative power of extreme disrespect and contempt.
In sum, the court of first instance to overthrow the two responsibility book with considerable arbitrariness.

　　2 , only that the appellee favorable advocate, of the appellant claims that refuses to cognizance, serious violations of the principle of trial

According to the "PRC law law" seventh article second and the civil procedure law, the judge should center trial, not favoritism favoritism. However, in the case of the first instance, the judge a serious violation of the principle of trial, only that the appellee favorable position, the appellant advocate fact refused to identify, specifically in the following aspects:
(1 ) distorted the facts, misattribution suffer the vehicle parked in the emergency lane. In fact, Chengya Expressway Shuangliu section is four lane design, from left to right third lanes are truck lane, one on the right (i.e. fourth) is the emergency lane. Whether the traffic police issued two copies of responsibility confirmation or accident scene graph showed that damaged vehicles parked truck lanes and non emergency lane.
(2The Yang Dong inquiry record) on a trial the plaintiff selective determination.2008Years7Month4Day01When the55Be assigned to02When the23Divided into the high speed traffic police brigade on the stoneXXXThe same car Yang Dong interviewed. According to the record of inquiry, the appellant has proposed that Shi Yang Dong in the first instanceXXXBefore the accident had drunk wine advocate two times, however, the court of first instance has not found. On the contrary, Yang Dong alleged stoneXXXAfter parking the car opened the emergency lamp is it to be found. When the accident as a matter of fact, Yang Dong I also drank wine, in the parking lot to only a minute in the accident, how can on whether or not to open the emergency lights memories? If really opened the emergency lamp, in the rear of the car Yu Shubin than he see more clearly? If in this case Yang Dong's statement is true, then as a stoneXXXClose to the Yang Dong and stoneXXXContinuous occurred a few hours together of things and the stoneXXXDrink in clear detail, more should be considered as true. Why can the court of first instance is not to be found?! Visible, the fact finding of the court of first instance exists obvious bias, a clear violation of the principle of trial centered trial.

　　3 , analysis of causality analysis and the main reason to build cost accident seriously contrary to common sense, common sense

This is a case of vehicle accidents, to identify the main reason that causes this accident should first of all behaviors and the accident of illegality, relevance and risk analysis.
(1The driver of a vehicle) into the stoneXXXThe behavior is illegal and a serious risk, has direct correlation with the occurrence of the accident, is the main cause of the accident.
According to "the people's Republic of China Road Traffic Safety Law" stipulates that the sixty-eighth:"A breakdown vehicle on the highway, matters shall be handled in accordance with the relevant provisions of this law article fifty-second; however, warning signs shall be set up in the direction of fault car to car one hundred and fifty meters away, the personnel on the car should move quickly to the right shoulder or emergency lane, and quickly to the police."According to the "Regulations" article eighty-second the first implementation of the people's Republic of China road traffic safety law:"Motor vehicle driving on the highway, shall have the following acts: (a) reversing, retrograde, crossing the central median U-turn or stop in the driveway........."Countries to develop the mandatory provision is, vehicles on the highway driving fast, safe driving any existing in the lane barrier will give the normal exercise of vehicle poses a great threat, prone to the collision, a major accident. In the case when the accident occurred in the stoneXXXViolation of laws and administrative regulations of the mandatory provisions of law, the vehicle park in the truck lane, a threat to the normal running of vehicles and safety, it is very dangerous. At the same time, the vehicle is parked in the driveway to form active acceptance by other vehicles collision situation, is a kind of themselves as intentional behavior risk environment. In the daytime of normal visual conditions are dangerous, let alone in the night. In this case, to avoid the accident is the only condition for normal driving conditions drivers keep as vigilant runs in abnormal conditions, this is obviously unreasonable, is unrealistic. Therefore, in this case, the possibility of accident occurrence is great, great inevitability; and avoid the occurrence of accidents is quite by chance. Therefore, the impacted vehicle driver stoneXXXThe behavior is illegal and a serious risk, has direct correlation with the occurrence of the accident, is the main cause of the accident.
(2) the appellant the normal running of the vehicle, there is no necessary connection with the accident.
firstly, the appellant normal vehicles in the wagon. According to "road traffic safety law" the Seventy-eighth stipulation: should be marked lane highway speed, the maximum speed of not more than an hour120Kilometers per hour, the minimum speed should not be less than60Km. A small passenger vehicle top speed on the expressway may not exceed the per hour120Kilometers per hour, and other motor vehicle shall not exceed100Kilometers per hour, the motorcycle shall not exceed80Km. At the time of the accident, the vehicle in the third lane is the truck lane and speed at60 70Km/Hours, belongs to the normal speed.
Secondly, the objective conditions at the time of the accident that the appellant YuXXXTake whatever measures are impossible to avoid accidents, the appellant YuXXXFacing the irresistible force. According to the traffic police to more thanXXXThe inquiry record shows that, when the accident occurred more thanXXXFrom the stoneXXXThe distance between vehicles is about100M, the left is vehicles, therefore, if the immediate left lane, then he will with second lane road vehicle collision or collision. At the same time, its not possible to immediately stop, because this is driving on the highway, if stop immediately behind him with the direction of high-speed car on his rear end. In such emergencies, he needs at least5 6Reaction time seconds to think about how to cope with the unexpected situation. However, he himself driving the car speed60To70Km, that is17 19.5MSecond, this isIn 5 - 6Reaction time within seconds of the car had been driving85M-- 117M. Wait until he react immediately to the car was completely when braking, and from the impacted vehicle only a maximum of 15MDistance. According to the test showed that, during a 60 hourKm and70Kilometers, from complete brake trampled to death to brake work needs18Rice and24Meters away, while the car has come to a complete stop need30.48And39Meters distance. Visible, even if is the empty case, more than in theXXXReact should take emergency measures still need30.5To39Meters distance to the car comes to a complete stop. In fact IXXXDriving a car loaded with goods, therefore, in the role of inertia, effectively stopping distance required should be in40Meters. According to the previous analysis, YuXXXApply emergency braking measures from the stoneXXXOnly about15M, according to the traffic police to chart the scene of the accident AkashiXXXThe car was moving forward26Meters, two additive for41M. Visible, facts and our analysis corroborated. The analysis shows that, the appellant YuXXXIn the face of their own can not overcome the forces in the normal driving, despite how hard can not avoid the accident, when the accident occurred more thanXXXFacing the irresistible force situation.
(3) basic and direct reason of oil spills and overloading is not accident.
The inspection report shows, the appellant vehicle"The car's third bearing oil seal damage, friction plate local pollution by oil, it will have an adverse impact on the vehicle braking performance". But in fact, the friction plates of the car is just a small local pollution, the braking efficiency influence is small; the same, basic and direct reason of this car thirty percent overload nor accident. Even if these two factors on the influence factors of automobile braking, its role and the front is also very little. However, the court of first instance to the two factors identified as the main reason for the accident happened, it was not consistent with the objective facts.
　　4 , above all, the court of first instance against the principle of neutrality of judgment, to the plaintiff, subjective, ascertaining the facts contrary to common sense and obvious error, the division of responsibilities seriously distorted the facts, serious unfairness.

Two, the court of first instance serious illegal program

　　1The court of first instance of violation of the procedures, the plaintiff in the trial of first instance has increased litigation to trial

In this case, is the time limit of the appellant as2008Years9Month18DayThe Supreme People's court, "several regulations about the civil action evidence" provided for in the third paragraph thirty-fourth, it shall put forward the increase or change the claim request at this point in time, however, until the2008Years9Month30DayIt is proposed to increase the request for compensation for mental damages and the car. According to the provisions of article thirty-fourth paragraph third, the appellee claim overdue, the court should not be tried. However, the court of first instance not only to the trial, and the decision to support each other increase litigation request.

　　2The court of first instance, illegal re specified time limit for adducing evidence

In the case of the first instance, the appellee on the time limit for adducing evidence2008Years9Month18DayAfter the expiration of the first instance court and submitted to the court second copies of the book that the responsibility of traffic accident. According to "the Supreme People's Court on evidence in civil litigation provisions" thirty-fourth:"The parties concerned shall submit evidential materials in the people's court within the time limit does not submit the proof, the parties within the specified time period, regarded as giving up the right to. The evidence submitted by the parties, the people's court without organization quality certificate. But the consent of the other party except the quality of evidence. Without evidence, cannot serve as the basis that the facts of the case......."Article forty-second:"The parties to provide new evidence in the procedure of first instance, shall be presented in the first instance court before or during the court session."Article forty-seventh:"The evidence shall be presented in court, cross examination by the parties."However, the court of first instance to practice the appellee's illegal again for the specified time limit for adducing evidence, as the evidence in the case to be found. This approach obviously violated the "Regulations" provisions of the Supreme People's Court on evidence in civil proceedings, obviously biased in the appellee.

Three, The court of first instance erroneous application of the law

This accident, YuXXXDriving the truck by the same loss. One for the repair of vehicle cost1500Yuan fare for repair, vehicle accident forced outage outage losses during the22491Yuan, the appellant submitted the fees, charges and payment vouchers and account books. According to the "loss of property, whether on the traffic accidents in the Supreme People's court shall reply" loss includes vehicle outage loss, in the cases of traffic accident damages, if the vehicle was damaged in the carriage of goods or passengers for transportation business, to seek compensation for loss of vehicle repair lost during the outage, traffic accidents should be responsible for compensation. However, the court of first instance but in spite of the truth, flatly rejected the appellant's claim.
In this case the appellee DepartmentXXXCounty engaged in development of real estate industry enterprises, and the appellant is only a truck owner, two in terms of economic strength or other aspects compared gap. The court of first instance regardless of objective facts and legal regulations, any judge, to bear on the appellant33Liability million yuan, which is not only the objective facts and cases of discrepancies, also rules and laws violate, even without considering the strength of the gap between the parties and the risk bearing capacity of contrast, is not reasonable, unreasonable or illegal. Therefore, request the court of second instance to be corrected according to law.
　　
　　 Yours sincerely
Chengdu City Intermediate People's court
                                                                                                                                    Agent: XXX

                                                                                                                                 Two 0 one three years in March 15th