Road Accident Victim Awarded CNY 55,822 in Eastern China City
A court in Eastern China City has ordered a driver and his insurer to pay a total of CNY 55,822.52 in compensation to a man injured in a road traffic accident. The plaintiff, Mr. Shi, sustained a 10% disability and incurred medical expenses, lost income, and other losses after a collision on National Highway 206 on August 30, 2011. The defendant driver, Mr. Liu, was found to bear primary responsibility for the crash. The insurer, the Eastern China City Branch of a major property insurance company, was directed to pay the bulk of the award from the compulsory motor vehicle liability insurance policy held by Mr. Liu.
The accident occurred around noon on August 30, 2011, at a west roundabout along National Highway 206. Mr. Liu was driving a vehicle northbound and turned right, colliding with a small minibus driven by Mr. Shi, who was traveling eastbound. The Eastern China City Traffic Police determined that Mr. Liu was primarily at fault and Mr. Shi bore secondary responsibility. Mr. Liu’s vehicle was insured under a compulsory traffic insurance policy with a total liability limit of CNY 122,000, effective from May 17, 2011, to May 16, 2012. Mr. Shi suffered injuries requiring 18 days of hospitalization at the Eastern China City People’s Hospital and was later assessed with a 10% disability, a four-month recovery period, and a need for a second surgery costing CNY 6,000.
At trial, both parties presented evidence including the official traffic accident report, hospital admission and discharge records, outpatient bills, medication detail lists, appraisal fee receipts, and photocopying charges. The plaintiff’s legal representative, Mr. Yu, submitted medical invoices totaling CNY 14,714.90, income loss calculations, and a forensic appraisal confirming the disability rating and the estimated cost of follow-up surgery. The defendant driver’s representative, Mr. Yang, and the insurer’s counsel, Mr. Jiang, attended the hearing. The insurer argued that its liability should be limited to the sub-limits of the compulsory insurance policy, while Mr. Liu acknowledged the accident but sought fair compensation within the law.
The court found the facts clear and the evidence sufficient. It accepted the traffic police’s liability determination without objection from either side. For the plaintiff’s claimed losses, the court supported items that complied with relevant regulations. The court held that because Mr. Liu had an active compulsory traffic insurance policy at the time of the accident, the insurer must compensate Mr. Shi directly within the total policy limit of CNY 122,000. The court further ruled that the insurer’s internal sub‑limits do not bind third‑party victims, emphasizing the need to protect the victim’s right to life and health.
The legal analysis focused on the scope of compulsory traffic insurance. The court noted that current laws do not require the insurer to pay only within separate sub‑limits for medical expenses and death/disability. The agreement between the insurer and the policyholder cannot restrict the rights of an unspecified third party. Therefore, the insurer was ordered to cover all medical and disability‑related losses up to the total CNY 122,000 limit. For losses outside insurance coverage, namely the CNY 1,420 appraisal fee and CNY 30 photocopying fee, Mr. Liu was required to pay 70% (CNY 1,015) in line with his primary fault. The court rejected all other claims.
In its final judgment, the court ordered the insurer to pay CNY 54,806.52 in total, comprising medical expenses, lost wages, nursing fees, living subsidies, transport costs, disability compensation, second‑surgery costs, and CNY 1,000 for emotional distress. Mr. Liu was separately ordered to pay CNY 1,015 for the uncovered items. The court also allocated the CNY 1,250 case acceptance fee between the parties—Mr. Liu paying CNY 875 and Mr. Shi paying CNY 375. This case illustrates how Chinese courts interpret compulsory insurance requirements to prioritize victim compensation, even when the insurer’s policy contains internal sub‑limits.
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.