Pedestrian Hit by Car in Crosswalk: Court Awards 265,534 RMB in Damages for Serious Injuries

Pedestrian Hit by Car in Crosswalk: Court Awards 265,534 RMB in Damages for Serious Injuries

Case Overview

A pedestrian who suffered severe injuries including brain damage and pelvic fractures after being struck by a vehicle in a crosswalk was awarded total compensation of 265,534.28 RMB by an appellate court in Southern China. The case involved a dispute over the calculation of damages, the proper standard for determining disability compensation, and the allocation of liability between the insurance company and the at-fault driver. The appellate court partially reversed the trial judgment, correcting the method used to calculate the defendant driver’s share of damages after deducting the insurance payout.

Case Background and Facts

On March 22, 2009, at approximately 10:40 AM, Mr. Wang was driving his vehicle eastbound on a major road in Southern China when he collided with pedestrian Ms. Chen in a crosswalk. The impact caused Ms. Chen to suffer catastrophic injuries. She was immediately transported to a local hospital for emergency treatment.

The traffic police department issued an accident determination finding that both Mr. Wang and Ms. Chen bore equal responsibility for the collision. Ms. Chen was hospitalized for 221 days, from March 22, 2009, to October 28, 2009. Her discharge certificate listed multiple severe injuries: bilateral pubic ramus fractures, sacral fracture, severe closed craniocerebral injury including brain stem injury, right frontotemporal lobe contusion and laceration, right frontotemporoparietal subdural hemorrhage, left parietal scalp laceration, and right knee soft tissue contusion.

The discharge orders prescribed one year of rest, continued outpatient treatment, enhanced nutrition, and estimated future medical expenses of approximately 40,000 RMB. The hospital also specified that Ms. Chen required three caregivers during her initial hospitalization and two caregivers thereafter.

Court Proceedings and Evidence

Ms. Chen filed a lawsuit against Mr. Wang and the insurance company, China XX Property Insurance Co., Ltd. Shenzhen Branch, seeking compensation for her injuries. The trial court in Southern China heard the case and rendered judgment.

Both parties appealed. Ms. Chen appealed the calculation method for damages, arguing that the trial court incorrectly computed her total compensation. She contended that the insurance company should pay its 112,000 RMB limit first, and only then should Mr. Wang’s 60% share be calculated on the remaining amount, minus his advance payments.

The insurance company appealed on multiple grounds. It argued that disability compensation should be calculated using 2009 income standards rather than 2010 standards. It disputed Ms. Chen’s claimed monthly income of 3,500 RMB, asserting that her actual income was unproven and that minimum wage standards should apply. The insurance company also sought to deduct certain medical expenses it claimed exceeded social insurance coverage limits.

The appellate court reviewed the medical records, including a psychiatric evaluation from Shenzhen Kangning Hospital diagnosing Ms. Chen with brain trauma-induced mental disorder classified as mild mental impairment constituting a Level 8 disability. A separate forensic examination found Ms. Chen suffered a Level 8 disability from brain injury and a Level 9 disability from pelvic injury, with estimated future medical costs of 44,000 RMB.

Court Findings and Judgment

The appellate court confirmed the trial court’s factual findings but corrected the legal application regarding damage calculation. The court held that the insurance company must pay its full compulsory insurance limit of 112,000 RMB directly to Ms. Chen without applying the 60% liability split. Only the amount exceeding the insurance limit should be divided according to the parties’ respective fault.

The court calculated total damages as 496,257.58 RMB. After deducting the insurance company’s 122,000 RMB liability limit (including 10,000 RMB already paid for medical expenses), the remaining 374,257.58 RMB was subject to Mr. Wang’s 60% share, yielding 224,554.55 RMB. After subtracting Mr. Wang’s advance payments of 71,020.27 RMB, he was ordered to pay an additional 153,534.28 RMB. Ms. Chen’s total recovery was 265,534.28 RMB.

The court rejected the insurance company’s arguments regarding disability compensation standards, confirming that the trial court properly applied the 2010 standards as the relevant “previous year” at the time of the first-instance trial. The court also upheld the 586-day lost income calculation based on Ms. Chen’s documented monthly income of 3,500 RMB and the medical orders requiring one year of rest.

Key Legal Principles

The court applied the principle that compulsory motor vehicle liability insurance pays within policy limits regardless of the victim’s comparative fault. Only damages exceeding the insurance limit are apportioned according to the parties’ respective degrees of fault. The “previous year” for calculating disability compensation refers to the year before the first-instance trial’s closing arguments, not the year of the accident. Lost income is determined by actual documented earnings and medical orders regarding recovery time, not minimum wage assumptions.

Practical Insights

This case illustrates the importance of understanding how insurance payments interact with fault-based damage calculations. Victims should ensure that insurance coverage is applied first before apportioning fault. Proper documentation of income, medical expenses, and disability evaluations is critical for maximizing recovery. The case also demonstrates that appellate courts will correct computational errors in damage calculations, even when the underlying factual findings are affirmed.

Legal References

Interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Personal Injury Compensation Cases: Articles 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 28, 35

Road Traffic Safety Law of the People’s Republic of China (2007): Article 76

General Principles of the Civil Law of the People’s Republic of China: Articles 106, 119

Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China (2007): Article 153

Disclaimer

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified attorney for specific legal matters.