Court Awards CNY 6,099.94 in Assault Between Brothers-in-Law
A court in Eastern China City has ordered a man to pay compensation of CNY 6,099.94 to his brother-in-law for injuries sustained during a physical altercation. The dispute arose after the defendant went to the plaintiff’s home looking for his estranged wife, leading to a confrontation that ended in a mutual brawl. The court found both parties partially at fault, applying a 30 percent reduction to the damages due to the plaintiff’s own provocative conduct.
The plaintiff, Mr. Zhang, and the defendant, Mr. Yu, are brothers-in-law: Mr. Zhang is married to the sister of Mr. Yu’s wife. The two men had a history of discord over family matters. On the evening of September 9, 2011, Mr. Yu went to Mr. Zhang’s home to search for his wife, who had left him. Unable to find her, he pounded on the door and pulled the main electrical switch before returning home. Mr. Zhang then armed himself with a stick, went to Mr. Yu’s residence, and forced open the door with the stick. A verbal argument escalated into a physical fight in which both men used fists and sticks. Mr. Zhang sustained a fractured ring finger on his left hand, as well as multiple contusions and swelling on his head and face. He was hospitalized for six days at a hospital in Eastern China City, incurring medical expenses of CNY 6,430.20 and an ambulance fee of CNY 250. The discharge instructions recommended one month of rest. After unsuccessful attempts to settle the matter privately, Mr. Zhang filed a lawsuit seeking total damages of CNY 12,504, covering medical costs, lost income, nursing care, nutrition, hospital meals, and travel expenses.
During the court hearing, the plaintiff testified that he had no fixed income and agreed to calculate his lost wages based on the local minimum wage standard. The defendant argued that the plaintiff’s injuries were self-inflicted from knocking on the door, and he also claimed that the plaintiff had damaged his door. The defendant challenged the medical expenses but declined the court’s invitation to apply for a forensic medical appraisal to determine the necessity of the treatment or its causal link to the incident. The court examined evidence including the plaintiff’s discharge summary, medical receipts, an itemized hospital bill, a police report from the local station, and the trial transcripts.
The court held that Mr. Zhang’s right to life and health was protected under the Tort Law of the People’s Republic of China. However, the court found that the plaintiff also bore responsibility for the incident. Although Mr. Yu initiated the confrontation by pulling the electrical switch, Mr. Zhang escalated the situation by arming himself with a stick and forcing entry into the defendant’s home. This constituted an intentional act of provocation. Accordingly, the court reduced the defendant’s liability by 30 percent. On the damages, the court calculated the plaintiff’s total losses as follows: medical expenses CNY 6,430.20; hospital meal allowance for six days at CNY 18 per day, totaling CNY 108; nursing care for the hospital stay at CNY 50 per day for one person, totaling CNY 300; nutritional support for the hospital stay at CNY 20 per day, totaling CNY 120; lost wages for 37 days (6 days hospitalized plus 31 days rest) based on the local minimum wage of CNY 1,140 per month, amounting to CNY 1,406; transportation costs, including the ambulance fee of CNY 250 and an additional CNY 100 for travel to and from the hospital, though the plaintiff did not provide receipts, the court allowed a reasonable amount. The total came to CNY 8,714.20. Applying the 70 percent liability, the defendant was ordered to pay CNY 6,099.94.
The court applied established legal principles of comparative fault and burden of proof. Under the Tort Law, an injured party who contributes to his own harm may see the damages reduced proportionally. The defendant’s claim for compensation for the damaged door was dismissed because he failed to file a counterclaim within the prescribed time limit for evidence submission; the court noted he could pursue that matter in a separate lawsuit. The defendant’s unsupported assertion that the plaintiff caused his own injuries was rejected due to lack of evidence, and his challenge to the medical costs was overruled as he declined the opportunity for forensic review. The court emphasized that the calculation of damages followed the Supreme People’s Court’s Judicial Interpretation on Compensation for Personal Injury, using standard local rates for lost wages, nursing, and nutrition.
This case illustrates how courts in China allocate liability when both parties contribute to a violent incident. The ruling underscores the importance of preserving evidence and meeting procedural deadlines, such as the time limit for filing counterclaims. Individuals involved in family disputes should be aware that provocative actions can reduce their entitlement to full compensation. The decision also highlights that medical expenses will generally be upheld unless a defendant successfully challenges their necessity through expert evidence. The judgment serves as a practical reminder of the interplay between personal conduct and legal liability in tort cases.
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.