27,767 Yuan Multi-Vehicle Collision: Four Liable Parties Share Compensation for Tractor Passenger With Multiple Fractures

A passenger riding in an overloaded tractor who suffered multiple rib fractures and other injuries in a four-party collision was awarded 27,767 yuan in compensation, with damages allocated among two drivers, a vehicle owner who parked illegally, and two insurance companies based on their respective degrees of fault.

In July 2010, a dump truck driver swerved to avoid an electric scooter making a left turn and collided head-on with an oncoming tractor carrying three people. The scooter driver and a car owner who had parked illegally on the road shoulder were also found partially at fault. Traffic police determined the truck driver and scooter rider bore equal primary responsibility, while the tractor driver and the parked car owner each bore secondary responsibility. The two passengers, including the plaintiff, were faultless.

The plaintiff was hospitalized for 45 days with bilateral multiple rib fractures, a lumbar vertebra fracture, a crushed toe, ulnar nerve contusion, and extensive soft tissue injuries. A judicial assessment confirmed a four-month recovery period requiring nursing care during hospitalization. Medical expenses totaled 12,637 yuan, with additional claims for lost income, nursing costs, hospital food allowance, and assessment fees bringing the total to 27,767 yuan.

Both the dump truck and the parked car carried mandatory traffic insurance. The court allocated each insurer’s contribution proportionally among the four injured victims from the same accident, with each insurer paying 9,269 yuan to the plaintiff. The remaining 9,229 yuan was divided among the four liable parties: the truck driver paid 3,876 yuan minus an 8,000 yuan advance payment already made, the scooter rider paid 2,584 yuan, the parked car owner paid 1,384 yuan, and the tractor driver bore his share through the reduced insurance recovery.

The court adjusted several claims: lost income was calculated using the agricultural sector average rather than the plaintiff’s claimed rate, as no tax documentation was provided. The insurers refused to include commercial policy coverage in the same proceeding, so those claims were reserved for separate litigation. Mental distress was not addressed in the final award.