Court Awards CNY 102,801.93 in Road Accident Injury Case
The Eastern China City People’s Court has ruled in a motor vehicle accident dispute, ordering a company to pay over one hundred thousand yuan in damages to an injured plaintiff. The case arose from a collision involving a heavy semi-trailer truck and another vehicle, resulting in one fatality and injuries to the plaintiff. The court determined liability and calculated compensation after the insurance coverage had been exhausted.
The incident occurred on April 26, 2011, when Mr. Fan, an employee of Shanghai Heze Company, drove a company-owned truck through an intersection in Eastern China City. Mr. Fan failed to follow the designated lane and collided with a vehicle driven by Mr. Sun. The impact killed Mr. Sun instantly and seriously injured the plaintiff, Mr. Wang, who was a passenger in Mr. Sun’s car. Police found Mr. Fan primarily responsible for the accident, Mr. Sun secondarily responsible, and Mr. Wang not at fault. Mr. Wang suffered a pelvic fracture, a comminuted fracture of the right humerus, and right radial nerve injury. He underwent hospital treatment for 21 days. His employer, a bridge construction team, paid him a monthly salary of 2,589.70 yuan, which stopped during his absence.
At trial, the court reviewed extensive evidence including medical records, expense receipts, a judicial鉴定 report from an institute in Eastern China City, employment contracts, wage statements, and prior court judgments. The鉴定 report confirmed that Mr. Wang’s pelvic injury had healed with severe deformity, constituting a Level 9 disability. It also set recommended periods for lost work (seven months), nursing care (five months), and nutritional support (five months). The plaintiff’s total claimed losses amounted to 154,994.90 yuan. The defendant Shanghai Heze Company argued that its vehicle had compulsory liability insurance and commercial insurance, and that Mr. Fan was acting within his employment scope. The insurance company, Yongcheng Insurance Shanghai Branch, stated that the compulsory insurance limit had already been fully paid out under earlier judgments for the fatality and Mr. Wang’s initial medical costs.
The court found that Mr. Wang’s compensable losses totaled 146,859.90 yuan, comprising medical expenses (1,177 yuan), hospital meal allowance (396 yuan), nutrition (1,800 yuan), lost wages (18,127.90 yuan), nursing care (6,855 yuan), transportation (500 yuan), disability compensation (105,364 yuan),鉴定 fee (2,640 yuan), and moral damages (10,000 yuan). Because the compulsory insurance limit had been exhausted, the court held that Shanghai Heze Company, as the employer of the negligent driver, must bear the primary liability. According to relevant law, the company was ordered to pay 70 percent of the remaining losses after accounting for the plaintiff’s own responsibility, resulting in 102,801.93 yuan.
The legal basis for the decision included the General Principles of Civil Law, the Road Traffic Safety Law, and judicial interpretations on personal injury compensation. The court emphasized that an employer is vicariously liable for an employee’s actions during work. Additionally, because the insurance coverage had been fully used in prior cases, the insurer had no further obligation. The court also noted that Mr. Fan, as an employee, was not personally liable. The judgment reflects standard principles of proportional liability and the exhaustion of compulsory insurance limits in multi-claim accidents.
This case illustrates how Chinese courts handle sequential compensation claims after a single accident involves multiple victims and limited insurance coverage. The plaintiff successfully obtained significant damages for his severe injuries, but had to bear part of his losses due to the defendant’s primary but not sole fault. The ruling also underscores the importance of employers maintaining adequate commercial insurance beyond the statutory minimum. Parties involved in road traffic accidents should be aware that early exhaustion of compulsory insurance may shift the financial burden entirely to the responsible employer.
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.