CNY 106,939.40 Awarded in Fatal Traffic Accident Case
In this case, four siblings brought a lawsuit against a driver and his insurance company after their mother was killed in a road accident. The court found the driver fully liable and ordered the insurer to pay compensation totaling CNY 106,939.40. The case involved a fatal collision between a light truck and a pedestrian on a rural road. The judgment addressed issues of liability, insurance coverage, and the calculation of damages for the victim’s family.
The accident occurred on July 4, 2011, in Eastern China City. The defendant, Mr. Chen, was driving a light truck when he struck the victim, Ms. Cao, from behind while she was walking in the non-motor vehicle lane. Ms. Cao died at the scene. Police later determined that Mr. Chen was entirely at fault. Ms. Cao’s four children, Mr. Wang, Mr. Zhang, Mr. Liu, and Ms. Zhao, filed a civil claim against Mr. Chen and the insurance company, Eastern China Insurance Company (Eastern China City Branch). They sought CNY 160,260 in damages, including funeral expenses, loss of income for family members, and mental distress compensation. Mr. Chen had already paid CNY 50,000 to the family during related criminal proceedings.
During the court hearing, both parties presented evidence. The plaintiffs submitted police accident reports, a death certificate, medical expense receipts for emergency treatment, and household registration documents. The defendant driver’s representative provided proof of insurance and a receipt showing the prior payment of CNY 50,000. The insurance company argued that certain expenses, such as the autopsy fee and high amounts for transportation and lost wages, were not supported by sufficient evidence. The court examined all submitted materials and heard oral arguments from all representatives.
The court held that Mr. Chen bore full responsibility for the accident and must compensate the victims’ family for their losses. However, because the truck was insured under a compulsory motor vehicle liability policy, the insurer was required to pay the damages within the policy limit of CNY 122,000. The court calculated the total economic loss as follows: death compensation of CNY 64,477 based on 12.20 years of rural income at CNY 5,285 per year; funeral expenses of CNY 17,507; medical costs of CNY 139; lost wages for three family members handling the funeral at CNY 4,316.40 (based on 15 days at CNY 95.92 per day); and transportation costs of CNY 500. The court also awarded CNY 20,000 in mental distress damages, reduced from the requested CNY 70,000 due to the prior voluntary payment from Mr. Chen. The court disallowed the autopsy fee claim for lack of evidence.
According to relevant law, the court applied the General Principles of Civil Law and the Road Traffic Safety Law, which require insurers to pay compensation for bodily injury or death under compulsory insurance. The court also cited the Supreme People’s Court’s interpretations on personal injury compensation and mental damages. The key legal point was that while the driver’s criminal punishment did not eliminate civil liability for mental distress, the economic compensation already received was a factor in reducing that amount. The court emphasized that damages must be reasonable and supported by evidence, and that the insurance company’s liability was capped at the policy limit.
In summary, the court ordered Eastern China Insurance Company (Eastern China City Branch) to pay the four plaintiffs a total of CNY 106,939.40 from the compulsory insurance policy. The remaining claims were dismissed. The defendant driver was ordered to bear half of the court costs, amounting to CNY 1,752. The judgment must be fulfilled within ten days of its effective date. This case illustrates how courts allocate damages in fatal traffic accidents and the role of compulsory insurance in protecting victims’ families. It also shows the court’s discretion in adjusting claims for mental distress when partial compensation has already been provided.
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.