But not with direct collision with the motor vehicle accident vehicles in traffic accident fault and responsibility associated with the accident (path loss case 14)

He Yuehua and Xu Gang, Wuxi Mingzhu shuttle Guest Services Limited, Peoples Insurance Company of China Wuxi branch Xishan road traffic accident compensation for personal injury case

Problem: how to identify the vehicle linked but that no direct collision with the accident vehicle in traffic accident fault and responsibility associated with the accident?

[] hints

　　Motor vehicle overtaking in violation of the provisions of laws, for failing to keep enough to take emergency measures and other vehicles. The safe distance from other cars. The motor vehicle and vehicle collision accident is not directly, but a causal relationship between traffic accidents and its behavior, accident should bear the responsibility.

[index] case

The people's Court of first instance: Wuxi high tech Industrial Development Zone in Jiangsu province (2006) min first No. 2410th (May 16, 2006)
Second: Jiangsu Province, Wuxi City Intermediate People's Court (2006) tin min final No. 644th (September 20, 2006)

[case]

Plaintiff: He Yuehua.
Plaintiff: Xu Bin.
Plaintiff: Xu Shouzhen.
Defendant: Xu Gang.
Defendant: Sun Baoyi.
Defendant: Wuxi Mingzhu transfer passenger services Limited (hereinafter referred to as the Pearl Company).
Defendant: Wuxi Peoples Insurance Company of China Xishan branch (hereinafter referred to as the insurance company).
On December 30, 2005 at seven forty-five am, battery tricycle Xu Gang driving load 8 oxygen bottles in Wuxi Xue Dian route south to North Road to Shanghai Nanjing Expressway Viaduct Bridge Qiaotu found vehicle power not, during the upcoming car stopped in the middle of the road, the same direction, after a Pansheng driving Su BKB905 two motorcycles and Sun Baoyi driving Su B33152 large passenger train in running. Sun Baoyi was beyond two wheel motorcycles and battery tricycle, two motorcycles are Pansheng driving hit the battery tricycle with forward stopped in the middle of the road, after the battery tricycle and hit the Su B33152 large coach after the tail, causing damage to the vehicle, Xu Pansheng injured, after the hospital rescue invalid death major traffic accidents. Wuxi City Public Security Bureau Xinqu branch Traffic and Patrol Police Brigade (hereinafter referred to as the traffic police team) to make the traffic accident report in January 25, 2006, because the driving dynamic unable to verify the two wheel motorcycle and a large bus, the responsibility for the accident did not make a determination. Xu Pansheng was injured, was sent to the Wuxi Second People's Hospital, the diagnosis of multiple injuries, the fracture of multiple ribs, spleen trauma, fractures of the pelvis, renal contusion, gastric perforation, the right femoral intertrochanteric fracture, hemorrhagic shock, the condition is critical, the prognosis is poor, although the positive rescue treatment, but no significant effect after giving up treatment, family. The Xu Pansheng body for forensic examination by the Wuxi Municipal Public Security Bureau, said Xu abdomen and limb injury and death Pansheng. According to the vehicle inspection and authentication Traffic Police Department of the accident vehicle, Su B33152 vehicle qualification, Xu Pansheng driving two wheel motorcycle is not qualified, not as a dynamic test battery tricycle. The vehicle traces were identified by the Wuxi Municipal Public Security Bureau, inspection opinion: two motorcycles and battery tricycle rubbing marks, two wheel motorcycle right front and rear left side collision battery tricycle, motorcycle left lying on the ground can form. Battery tricycle and bus rubbing marks, tail left system before the battery tricycle front right in front of large passenger car collision can be formed.
Su BKB905 two wheel motorcycle owners Xu Pansheng. Su B33152 large ordinary car owners to Mingzhu company, sun Baoyi Department Mingzhu company staff, at the time of the accident, sun Baoyi is engaged in the act of duty. Battery tricycle owner Xu Gang. Insurance third party liability pearl company in October 20, 2005 in the insurance company for the Su B33152 large ordinary passenger cars insured liability limit is 200000 yuan, Xu Gang no vehicle insurance.
The day after Xu Pansheng was injured was sent to the Wuxi Second People's Hospital for treatment, with medical costs 38006.49 yuan. The plaintiffs argue that the death compensation of 12319 yuan x 20 years = 246 380 element. Therefore, the plaintiff provides police certificate in 1 copies, as the evidence according to the 2005 annual per capita disposable income of urban residents calculation of compensation for death.
The plaintiff for funeral expenses in accordance with the 2005 year average wage of workers in Jiangsu Province, 6 months for 10 478.5 yuan, the parking fee loss is 140 yuan, be brought up Xu Shouzhen's living expenses for 2972.5 yuan.
The plaintiff claims mental solatium is 50000 yuan. The Mingzhu company, insurance companies that are Pansheng death is caused by family members to give up treatment, shall be borne by the plaintiff to bear the responsibility.
The plaintiff said: on December 30, 2005, Xu Pansheng driving a motorcycle on the way to work by bus, overtaking Sun Baoyi driving force, resulting in Xu Pansheng and Xu Gang stopped in the middle of the road collision battery tricycle, traffic accidents caused by the death of Xu Pansheng. This requirement may order the defendant to compensate the loss the plaintiff to a total of RMB 347 977.49 yuan.
The defendant Sun Baoyi argued: traffic accident has nothing to do with, it will not agree to assume the liability of compensation.
The defendant company argued: vehicle and Pearl Xu Pansheng sun Baoyi driving without any impact, not the main responsibility for the accident, shall not bear the liability of compensation in traffic accident. Request rejected the plaintiff to Mingzhu company litigation request.
The insurance company that: they are not insured vehicle traffic accident fault, without any relationship with the traffic accident, the insurance company shall not bear the liability of compensation.
The defendant Xu Gang did not make a reply within the statutory time limit.

Trial.

Wuxi City, Jiangsu province high tech Industrial Development Zone, the people's court according to the facts and evidence that:The focus of this case the parties dispute is: (1) the traffic accident responsibility to that? Mingzhu company should bear responsibility for the accident? Whether the insurance company should bear the liability of compensation in the insurance liability limit? (2) the Xu Pansheng family to give up treatment after Xu Pansheng death is belonging to the family to expand the losses of the traffic accident?
On the focus of controversy: the plaintiff think Xu Pansheng hit battery tricycle is because Sun Baoyi overtaking forced behavior, Sun Baoyi, Xu Gang should assume full responsibility for the accident. The defendant Sun Baoyi, the insurance company that: Xu Pansheng is driving the unqualified vehicles not brake in time by the sun, Baoyi driving vehicles and traffic accident it doesn't matter, should not bear the responsibility for the accident. This house believes that: traffic accident responsibility should be negative in accordance with the traffic accident responsibility to bear the corresponding liability for damages. Due to the traffic police department to the traffic accident responsibility is not recognized, the court shall determine the degree of liability in accordance with the cause of the accident and the two sides of the fault. According to the principle of burden in danger, the victim has fault, taking into account both the weight of the duty of care of road traffic regulations, according to motor vehicle risk size and risk avoidance capability, distribution of traffic accidents damages. The vehicle was to increase the speed, path control and the ability to turn the car better performance is superior, or car speed, hardness, weight, size and so on other cars more dangerous for one by one to the burden of risk. In this case, there is the vehicle battery tricycle, motorcycle, bus, bus for the duty of care, so the bus driver should be significantly better than the motorcycle driver, battery tricycle driver. Although between motorcycle and bus no dent, but from the rubbing marks and sun Baoyi statement battery tricycles and motorcycles can be seen, when the sun Baoyi found the same direction in front of two wheel motorcycle parked in the middle of the road and the Xu Pansheng battery tricycle driver, between the two wheel motorcycle and tricycle battery has a distance recently, as the bus driver Sun Baoyi should have foreseen danger when overtaking there may be other lane, but has failed to do security attention obligation, with no motorcycle, battery tricycle to maintain adequate safety distance, the implementation of Overtaking Behavior, so that Xu Pansheng did not have enough distance to avoid, then Xu Pansheng hit battery tricycle death traffic accident, so overtaking behavior and accident Sun Baoyi there is a causal relationship. On Sun Baoyi in the traffic accident are fault liability, the court be identified. Xu Gang illegal to park vehicles in the middle lane, caused by road traffic barriers, but also not set clear parking markers, causes are accidents, so Xu Gang should be responsible for the accident. Xu Pansheng drives the unqualified vehicles on the road, an emergency brake after unable to take effective measures to avoid accidents, and accident liability corresponding. To sum up, Sun Baoyi, Xu Gang, Xu Pansheng should bear equal responsibility for the accident of the fault.
Motor vehicle caused human casualties, property losses due to road traffic accidents, shall be borne by the insurance companies in the motor vehicle third party liability insurance liability limits the scope of undertaking liability without fault. Because insurance third party liability insurance company for the Su B33152 large coach Mingzhu company insurance liability limit is 200000 yuan, shall be made by the insurance company within the liability limits of He Yuehua, Xu Bin, and Xu Shouzhen shall bear the liability for compensation according to law without fault.
On the focus of controversy both sides of two: the plaintiff that give up treatment because of the many Pansheng has no possibility for survival, to continue the treatment did not change the results in the death of Xu Pansheng. The defendant that Xu Pansheng death is the result of not giving up treatment, the defendant shall bear the corresponding costs. This house believes that from a Pansheng discharge record can be seen, Xu Pansheng was by damage has been very serious, to continue the treatment effect is not optimistic, family members to give up treatment is upset, can not deny that Xu Pansheng's death was caused by traffic accident facts. The defendants say if treatment is continued Xu Pansheng may improve argued that reason, inconsistent with the facts, the court shall not be accepted.
To sum up, the defendant shall be in accordance with the provisions of the law of traffic accident responsibility and the negative compensation Xu Pansheng legal successors first in order to He Yuehua, Xu Bin, Xu Shouzhen all cost. Standard of compensation should be in accordance with the "Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on certain issues concerning the application of law in the trial of personal injury compensation case"To be determined. He Yuehua, Xu Bin, Xu Shouzhen advocated the death compensation, medical expenses, funeral expenses, the cost of living dependency, parking fees, provided appropriate and sufficient evidence to prove, and calculating methods, standards are in accordance with the law, the court shall be confirmed; mental damage a disc of death on family members caused by large is the objective existence, therefore the plaintiff for mental injury solatium 50000 yuan, the amount is reasonable, the court shall support. Accordingly, He Yuehua, Xu Bin, Xu Shouzhen, the traffic accident loss: death compensation 246 380 yuan, the medical fee of 38006.49 yuan, 10478.5 yuan of funeral expenses, was dependent for living expenses 2972.5 yuan, 140 yuan parking fee, mental solatium total of 50 000 yuan, 347 977.49 yuan. Occurred in the motor vehicle and motor vehicle traffic accident insurance liability limit, beyond the loss of the vehicle by the parties liability according to their respective fault liability. Because of the accident is combined with the parties to the infringement, belonging to the non meaning contact joint tort, so Sun Baoyi and Xu Gang as a joint tortfeasor to Xu Pansheng due to the loss of traffic accidents held jointly and severally liable. When the accident happened because Sun Baoyi is performing the duties, the sun Baoyi liability for turn by Mingzhu company burden. Considering Xu Pansheng to accidents are at fault, so to He Yuehua, Xu Bin, Xu Shouzhen Sun Baoyi, Xu Gang bear all the costs of compensation litigation request, the court shall support.
The people's Court of Wuxi hi tech Industrial Development Zone in Jiangsu Province in accordance with the "general rule of the civil law" 106th article second, paragraph third, 119th, 131st, "The traffic safety law of the people's Republic of China on road"ArticleArticle seventy-six, "Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on certain issues concerning the application of law in the trial of personal injury compensation case"ArticleArticle seventeen, No.Article eighteen, No.Article nineteen, No.Article twenty-seven, No.Article twenty-eight, No.Article twenty-nine, "Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on some issues of determining civil right infringement spirit damage compensate responsibility"ArticleArticle tenRegulations, to make a judgment on May 17, 2006:
An insurance company shall, within ten days of He Yuehua, Xu Bin, Xu compensation payment Shouzhen 200000 yuan to the verdict legally effective date;
Two, Mingzhu company shall compensate the He Yuehua, Xu Bin, Xu Shouzhen 49325.83 yuan; Xu Gang, He Yuehua, Xu Bin, Xu Shouzhen should be compensation 49 325.83 yuan; Mingzhu company, Xu Gangying in this decision shall have legal effect from the date of its should bear the compensation paid directly to He Yuehua, Xu Bin, Xu Shouzhen ten days. Mingzhu company with Xu Gang on their respective obligations jointly and severally liable for compensation;
Three, rejected He Yuehua, Xu Bin, Xu Shouzhen's other claims.
The case acceptance fee of 7730 yuan, other litigation costs 1546 yuan, a total of 9276 yuan (prepaid by He Yuehua, Xu Bin, Xu Shouzhen, He Yuehua, Xu Bin), Xu Shouzhen burden 1408 yuan, be borne by the insurance company 5050 yuan, 1409 yuan by You Mingzhu burden, Xu Gang burden 1409 yuan. The insurance company, Mingzhu company, Xu Gang should be in this decision shall have legal effect, it should bear the cost paid directly to He Yuehua, Xu Bin, Xu Shouzhen.
After the verdicts, the insurance company refused to accept the verdict, the appeal to Jiangsu province Wuxi City Intermediate People's Court: according to Sun Baoyi's statement, sun Baoyi driving the bus from overtaking to two wheel motorcycle with Xu Pansheng driving the bus parallel, horizontal distance two wheel motorcycle or tricycle battery is respectively 2 meters and about 4 meters, so the sun Baoyi driving the bus overtaking is reasonable and legitimate, not persecute Hui Pansheng behavior, with Xu Pansheng driving two wheel motorcycle battery tricycle collided with no causal relationship. Cause of traffic accident is Xu Pansheng driving brake failure of the two wheel motorcycle parking induced and Xu Gang. He Yuehua is not a witness to the accident, the testimony is not convincing. He Yuehua, Xu Bin, Xu Shouzhen did not provide valid evidence to prove Sun Baoyi driving the bus overtaking is forced to Xu Pansheng, should bear the burden of the consequences of not. Traffic accident apply the principle of fault offset occurs between motor vehicles, so the sun Baoyi and Xu Pansheng have the same security attention obligation. The trial court according to the principle of risk burden, that bus relative to the two wheel motorcycle is good, the sun Baoyi security attention obligation than Xu Pansheng, overtaking the sun Baoyi fault is wrong. The court of second instance shall request rejected He Yuehua, Xu Bin, Xu Shouzhen's claim or remand.
Jiangsu province Wuxi City Intermediate People's court found: the insurance company, He Yuehua, Xu Bin, Xu Shouzhen has no objection to the court found the facts, Xu Gang raises no objection. Sun Baoyi, Mingzhu company on trial court to ascertain the facts that the traffic police team made no objection to identify accident responsibility, think the traffic police team had not recognized Sun Baoyi driver Xu Pansheng and the bus driving two wheel motorcycle traffic accident. Both sides of the court found the facts without objection, in part, the court for confirmation.
Second the other identified: the sun Baoyi in 2005 31 December, the traffic police team statement: the driving the bus found 1 car two wheel motorcycle with direction of the front, in front of two wheeled motorcycle has 1 car battery tricycle parked in the middle of the road, no one battery tricycle, which from the left lane beyond two motorcycles, two wheeled motorcycle and battery tricycle distance of 5 meters, the two wheel motorcycle or tricycle battery are in the middle. In January 18, 2006, Sun Baoyi to the traffic police team statement: when the bus passing to and two wheel motorcycle parallel, two motorcycles and battery tricycle about 10 meters away from the bus, horizontal distance two wheel motorcycle or tricycle battery is respectively 2 meters and 4 meters more.
Jiangsu province Wuxi City Intermediate People's court said: "the people's Republic of China Road Traffic Safety Law" the forty-third regulation, with the motor vehicle lane, after the car should keep a safe distance from the brake enough to take urgent measures and the front car, the car is turning, turn, overtaking, not allowed to overtake. According to Sun Baoyi's statement, the two wheeled motorcycle driving the bus ready to move beyond a Pansheng driving, has found two wheel motorcycle parked in front of the distance battery tricycle for the middle lane only a few meters, and two motorcycles and battery tricycle in the middle lane, should foresee two wheel motorcycle must bypass the battery tricycle to move from the overtaking lane, bus when overtaking on the two wheel motorcycle battery tricycle danger beyond. But Sun Baoyi was not safe attention duty, before and two motorcycles, battery tricycle to maintain Overtaking Behavior enough safety distance, so that Xu Pansheng did not have enough distance to avoid, two motorcycles followed Xu Pansheng into battery tricycle driving traffic accidents, so overtaking Sun Baoyi and the traffic accident there are some relationships, should bear the corresponding liability. Xu Gang parking, caused by road traffic barriers, but also not set was a stop sign, but also lead to the cause of the accident, the accident liability should be Xu Gang. Xu Pansheng drives the unqualified vehicles on the road, an emergency brake after unable to take effective measures to avoid accidents, the accident should bear the responsibility. Accordingly, the court ruled that Sun Baoyi, Xu Gang, Xu Pansheng to the accident bear equal responsibility is not wrong, the insurance company that Sun Baoyi driving the bus overtaking with Xu Pansheng driving two wheel motorcycle battery tricycle collided with no causal relationship, should not take the fault liability as the grounds of appeal no factual and legal basis, the court shall not accept. About Sun Baoyi, pearl company that Xu Pansheng consequences of death is to abandon the treatment results of their own, the court ruled that the traffic police team make the responsibility for the accident without identification is wrong, the traffic police team had not recognized Sun Baoyi driver Xu Pansheng and the bus driving two wheel motorcycle accident, because it did not appeal, also did not provide on defense, and inconsistent with the facts, the court shall not accept. The court finds that the facts are clear, the applicable law is correct, the sentence is not inappropriate, shall be maintained.
Jiangsu province Wuxi City Intermediate People's court in accordance with the "PRC Civil Procedure Law" article 153rd (a) of the Convention, to make a final decision in September 20, 2006: rejecting the appeal, upheld the. The second case acceptance fee 9276 yuan, by the appellant Peoples Insurance Company of China in Wuxi city of Xishan

[comments]

In this case because there is no motorcycles and buses directly rubbing marks and proved that the motor vehicle driving dynamic parties evidence,The traffic police department made no responsibility for the accidentAfter the hearing, the trial judge, although between motorcycle and bus no dent, but such a conclusion can be drawn from the battery tricycle and motorcycle rubbed marks and statements of the parties and the site map evidence synthesis judgment:When the bus driver found the same direction in front of two wheel motorcycle parked in the battery tricycle and in the middle of the road and overtaking, due to keep a safe distance between not enough and the other lane vehicle, the other lane vehicle no place to avoid traffic accidents. ThusAccording to the principle of determining the risk burden of motor vehicles, buses on the existence of the accident liability. The Overtaking Behavior and accident the bus driver the existence of certain causal relationship, bear the liability in the traffic accident.In this case, the accident involved motorcycle vehicle battery tricycle, and bus, the bus was excellent, so the duty of the bus driver should be significantly better than the motorcycle driver, battery tricycle driver. The second trial judge think: from the bus driver statement, can be identified in the bus driver to overtake, should anticipate running in front of the motorcycle is necessary when overtaking, overtaking on the front car after car danger. But when the bus driver violates the duty of care, in the absence of motorcycle, battery tricycle to maintain Overtaking Behavior enough safety distance, there is causality on after the accident, should bear the liability.
Although different in responsibility for expression, but with the bus driver of traffic accidents at the wrong time implementation of overtaking the causal relationship between views is the same. Thus it should bear the responsibility for fault and the corresponding compensation liability. And this is the focus of dispute between the parties.
The traffic accident is a moment, especially difficult to affirm the fact in the absence of relevant witnesses or evidence in the case of truth. Only through some technical means or the relevant evidence to the fact true colours. SoBetween traffic accident vehicle has no direct impact not only traces the judgment standard of the accident liability. This case is that all kinds of evidence by judges and the statements of both parties, the traffic accident after the fact to make as much as possible conforms to the common sense that, and then use the principle of risk burden of motor vehicle traffic in the process of "" and maintain a safe distance from the vehicle should follow from the driving requirement to presumptive coach responsible for the accident is based the.

The single judge: Ren Lu
Instance members of a collegial panel: Zhu Jingyan Pan Zhijiang Shen strong
Written by: Jiangsu Province, Wuxi high tech Industrial Development Zone, the people's court Ren Lu
Editor: Lang Guimei)