CNY 100,346 Awarded in Motor Vehicle Accident Case
An Eastern China City court has ruled in a personal injury case stemming from a traffic accident, awarding over 100,000 CNY to an injured plaintiff. The dispute involved a collision between a light truck and an electric bicycle, leading to significant medical expenses and a permanent disability rating. The court allocated liability equally between the two drivers and addressed the insurance coverage held by the defendants.
The plaintiff, Mr. Wang, an elderly man born in 1942, was riding his electric bicycle on February 5, 2011, when a light truck driven by Mr. Li struck him. The truck was owned by Mr. Guo, who employed Mr. Li as a driver. Mr. Wang sustained multiple fractures and soft-tissue injuries, requiring hospitalization and later a disability assessment that classified his condition as an eighth-degree impairment. Mr. Wang claimed total damages of 100,346.22 CNY, including medical costs, lost income, and vehicle repair expenses. Mr. Guo had already paid 26,000 CNY in medical fees on behalf of the plaintiff. The truck was insured with a major insurance company under both compulsory liability coverage and commercial third-party liability insurance with a limit of 200,000 CNY, but without a deductible waiver clause.
During the court hearing, both sides presented extensive documentary evidence. Mr. Wang submitted medical records, hospital receipts, an appraisal report confirming his disability rating of eighth-degree, and a vehicle damage assessment from a licensed inspection agency. He also offered transportation receipts and identification of his daughter as a caregiver, though the court found the caregiver evidence insufficient to prove the claimed nursing rate. The insurance company argued that certain medical expenses were not related to the accident or were non-reimbursable under policy terms, and it contested the vehicle damage estimate. Mr. Guo presented receipts for the 26,000 CNY he paid. The court examined all evidence, accepting most of the plaintiff’s documents while rejecting the insurer’s self-prepared deduction lists for lack of independent verification.
The court held that Mr. Li, as the driver, was equally at fault for the accident according to the official traffic police report, which assigned 50% responsibility to each party. Because Mr. Li was an employee of Mr. Guo, Mr. Guo bore vicarious liability for the damages. The insurance company was required to pay first from the compulsory insurance coverage up to its limit, and then from the commercial policy for the remaining amount, subject to a 10% deductible due to the absence of a deductible waiver clause. The court found that Mr. Wang voluntarily accepted his 50% share of the loss beyond the compulsory coverage. The total compensable losses were calculated at 35,089.64 CNY for medical expenses, 700 CNY for hospital meal subsidies, and other items including transportation costs set at 600 CNY.
On the legal reasoning, the court applied principles of tort liability and insurance law. The key point was that the employer of the negligent driver was responsible for the employee’s actions during the course of employment. The court also clarified that appraisal fees and necessary vehicle repair costs were recoverable as direct consequences of the accident. Regarding the insurance policy, the court ruled that the insurer could not unilaterally exclude medical costs without proper proof. The 10% deductible, however, was enforceable because the policy explicitly omitted the waiver clause, and Mr. Guo agreed to cover that portion. The court further noted that the plaintiff’s claimed nursing fees lacked sufficient evidence to support the urban rate, so no award was made on that count.
This case illustrates how Chinese courts handle motor vehicle accident claims involving multiple defendants and insurance layers. The ruling reaffirms the principle of equal fault allocation when both parties contribute to the collision, and it highlights the importance of proper documentation for medical and vehicle expenses. For practitioners, the case underscores that employers can be held liable for their drivers’ negligence, and that insurance deductibles apply unless specifically waived. The judgment also demonstrates that self-created insurer documents may be disregarded if contested by the other party.
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.