Riding accident responsibility

[case]
A Real Estate Company's driver a units assigned by Rushan city to Silver Beach Tourism Development Zone site delivery, Xu four heard after the ride to Rushan Silver Beach to play. The vehicle on the Qing Wei car line, due to a sudden burst tyre and rollover, caused by a bus driver and Xu five people died on the spot. The accident is identified by the traffic police department, all drivers negative accident responsibility. Xu four relatives to the court, the Real Estate Company for the death compensation, funeral expenses, lost wages, transportation costs, mental injury solatium.

Trial.

After the court of first instance, the plaintiff by the defendant's family free vehicle, the defendant out of kindness to ride with the relatives of goodwill pick-up of the elements, the way of traffic accidents, causing the death of relative, the defendant shall be adequate compensation for the plaintiff's economic loss. But because the cause of the accident is "blowout", belongs to the accident, compensation liability may be appropriate to reduce the defendant's. Therefore, the court decided that the defendant compensation for the loss the plaintiff 309564 yuan 50%, namely 154782 yuan.

The verdict of the first trial, appeal. The second instance court that the appellant, relatives of free ride the appellee unit vehicle clear facts, is sufficient to recognize. The appellant claimed their relatives to Rushan Silver Beach can buy the appellee development of real estate, the burden of proof in the appellant, the Appellant had no evidence of its claims, should bear the legal consequences if it fails to do so, bear the lose liability; relatives appellant system free ride on vehicle v. people, not liable for compensation, liability is appellant passenger transportation contract is not fair, based on the interest balance, the appellee give the appellant is appropriate compensation, the trial court appeal by the economic loss compensation for the appellant's 50% and without undue, shall be maintained. Dismiss the appeal decision, upheld the.

[comments]

Distribution of this case involves the burden of proof and the blowout that belong to the "accident", hurt how to correctly apply the law in Xu et al. Under the condition of free ride, which in this case the key substantive judgment.

(a) first of all, the appellant to assert their families by the appellee's vehicle house that bears the burden of proof. According to the rules of evidence in civil litigation, the parties have the responsibility to provide evidence of their claims, in the absence of evidence or the evidence is insufficient, the legal consequences to bear the burden of proof is not. Appellant advocate their families aboard the vehicle at the appellee, should provide evidence that the. In the premise of no proof, not found Xu ride is appeal to perform his duties due to human behavior, the court will burden the case assigned to the appellant, the applicable law is correct.

(two) Secondly, reasons for accidents caused by tire burst is accidental. In the process of vehicle running, the driver should do safety careful driving duties, but because the vehicles traveling in the catastrophe and complexity, not because the party intentionally or negligently, will cause the accident, the accident is unpredictable, the case during the running process of the vehicle tire burst caused by outside line driver will the appellant claims department, subjective fault, the reason does not match, the court will occur locating events in an accident with the objective reality, is also in line with the principle of fairness.

(three) finally, kindness and tort liability by the behavior of the bear. In determining the Xu Lai et al Department of free riding situation, how to the hurt of relief, which relates to a legal theories: Hitchhiking tort.

The so-called hitchhiking tort, refers to the free ride others vehicle, and the vehicle in the traffic accident to free passengers suffered damage. It paid by different, passengers who paid: ticket ride car passengers, in the event of a traffic accident, according to passenger transport contract processing, there is no legal dispute; characteristics and free ride damage caused by tort is: first, non motor vehicle well as a rider to operating or travel, but to the vehicle owner's objective, objective and motor vehicle passenger travel purpose is just a coincidence, or is it just the way it; second, the riders travel in a motor vehicle for free, if paid for passenger transport contract adjustment. But while operating as special welcoming customers or others, although free, but not by ride, do not belong to the kindness aboard; third, fellow passenger shall be subject to the motor vehicle driver's consent, without the consent of the rider, does not constitute a hitchhiking. The establishment of the same kindness by tort liability, is the protection of victims, but also the limitation on liability in automobile ride. On the one hand, good will pick-up by other vehicles, does not mean that the passengers are willing to risk, can not think of hitchhiking to suffer from traffic accident damage claim right, the driver can not because hitchhiking is a free ride at the hitchhiking's life, property at disregarding, with kindness by not as drivers and owners to avoid expensive according to; on the other hand, since the hitchhiking is a free ride, is the "wind", if the occurrence of traffic accidents, to owners and passenger transport contract shall bear the liability for damages, it is not fair. The establishment of hitchhiking tort principles, conflict of interest is well balanced with passengers and the vehicle owner's meaning, to determine the appropriate compensation principle. In this case, the court based on the balance of interests, relatives of the victims compensation amount awarded 50% of the compensation, in full compliance with the spirit of law, the decision is correct.