The traffic accident personnel and third car speakers

Henan -- Luoyang Luoyang court ruling in Liu Zhiwei v. PICC branch of motor vehicle traffic accident liability disputes

    The referee essence

    The personnel on the car was thrown clear of the car in a traffic accident and injury, protection as the time of the accident has been in the car and lost car, shall decide the injured have been transformed by the car for third, the insurance company should be compensated in the insurance to pay strong limit.

    The case

   2012Years5Month19Day, the plaintiff Liu Zhiwei etc.5People take the defendant Yuan Fengwei driving comfortCU2113No. Changhe brand small ordinary passenger cars, traveling to the two Lushan Mountain County, Henan province wide high-speed wa Wu paragraph, Yuan Fengwei illegal from the emergency parking strip overtaking on the right side of the crashed overturned in the right-hand side of the road guardrail, door knocked out, caused the plaintiff left out of the bus were injured. The plaintiff was injured after hospital treatment, medical treatment cost9449.45Element. After identification, the plaintiff constitute ten level disability. The accident is identified by the traffic police department, Yuan Fengwei take full responsibility for the accident, the plaintiff is not responsible. Via checking, Yuan Fengwei for the car in the Peoples Insurance Company of China Luoyang branch (hereinafter referred to Luoyang branch of PICC) where the insured motor vehicle traffic accident liability compulsory insurance. The plaintiff sued the two defendants compensation for losses71714.35Element. Luoyang people's insurance insurance company that the plaintiff belongs to the vehicle to the personnel on the car, do not belong to the compulsory insurance should be compensation for victims.

    Referee

    Ruyang County of Henan Province, the people's court think, cross strong insurance guarantee insurance object should be the vehicle the vehicle and the insured victims. As for the understanding of the car workers, should be the insurance accident happens in a moment all personnel on the insured motor vehicle. In this case, the plaintiff because the insured vehicle and roadside guardrail collision was left out of the bus were injured, although the plaintiff did not and the insured vehicle collision, but the main part of it is left out of position has left the vehicle passenger compartment. Therefore, the plaintiff in the traffic accidents of the moment, it has transformed from the insured vehicle personnel on the car as the car outside personnel third, should belong to the risk of strong security object. The court: the defendant PICC Luoyang branch to compensate the plaintiff Liu Zhiwei medical expenses9449.45Yuan, disability compensation, mental damage solatium55097.91Element.

    Luoyang PICC points against the company, filed an appeal.

    Henan province Luoyang City Intermediate People's Court of the decision: rejecting the appeal, upheld the.

    Comment on

    The focus of this controversy: the plaintiff was thrown clear of the car in traffic accidents and injuries, the identity of the vehicle or the third.

    First, the plaintiff identified as third conform to the law. According to the "motor vehicle traffic accident liability compulsory insurance regulations" (hereinafter referred to as "Regulations") the provisions of twenty-first, cross strong insurance to protect the third "the car personnel, insurant outside of the victim". For the insured, "Regulations" article forty-second paragraph second is defined, refers to the legal driving the insured and permitted, and for the vehicle, the law does not clearly defined. Taken literally, this car personnel shall in the car carrying. In this case, the plaintiff's identity is special. Before the accident, which is a person, there is no doubt that belong to the vehicle; in the process of the accident, the door was off, the car was thrown out of the car, this time for the non personnel. Theory and practice a lot of people think, judge the traffic accident victims belong to the personnel of car third, should be based on the traffic accident happened at this particular point in time, in the insurance vehicle is the car personnel, under the car is third. The author thinks, "traffic accident" should not be limited to the accident to this point in time, and should be interpreted as the accident from the beginning to the end of the time. According to this understanding, in this case, in the process of traffic accident, has changed from the inside to the outside of the vehicle of the plaintiff's position, but the injury occurred in the car, the injury situation, it is not insured, also no longer is the vehicle, its status can only be third, the insurance company should pay the compensation in the amount.

    Secondly, the plaintiff identified as the third person in line with the principle of fairness. In the application of legal principles should generally not be prior to the rule of law, but if all the rule of law, in order to achieve justice cases, and no more reason, can be directly application of legal principles. In this case, for the vehicle, the law does not clearly defined, the plaintiff and the driver and compared to insurance companies in a weak position, the two party will define the dispute between the third, in view of the huge difference between the rule of law is not clear and the driver and the insurance company solvency, but the rules of application of law to supplement, third were in favor of the weakness of interpretation. If the plaintiff in the case was thrown out of the car hit the others, so that the two are injured, the others will not dispute was identified as third, obtain Cali system. If the plaintiff cannot obtain the cross strong insurance payment, can appear such results: two per capita in the car were injured, just because of the accident victims in the car or truck of the different positions and get treatment and support different, this is obviously unfair. Therefore, the plaintiff identified as third more in line with the principle of fair.

    In this case: (No.2012You Neimin) at the beginning of the word no.144(,2013Luo min) with the word no.828No.

Case: Ruyang County of Henan Province, the people's court  Li Gangqiang

Source: People's Court Daily (2013Years12Month12The Japanese version)

@Hu Wei lawyer read that, for the "vehicle", because of the lack of clear legal provisions, but there are all kinds of disputes, the Bo's "Guiding cases "road traffic accident insurance case in third that" -- Reading Hu Wei lawyer","How to define the motor vehicle third party liability insurance in the "third""All articles and so on the corresponding view, are of the view that this case should be identified as compulsory insurance of the third party in the.

The Hubei province high court thinks, the scope of motor vehicle third party liability compulsory insurance in the "third" should be strictly in accordance with the State Council "motor vehicle traffic accident liability compulsory insurance regulations" article21Shall be determined, the insured motor vehicle traffic accidents, such as the vehicle for motor vehicle overturn, tilted out of the insured motor vehicle damage, not the victim will be identified as motor vehicle third party liability compulsory insurance "the third person", the request of insurance companies bear the liability limits, not support.

Collision, various views to discard the false and retain the true, tell the truth.