Court Awards CNY 186,276 in Traffic Accident Injury Case
A court in Eastern China City has ruled in favor of a pedestrian injured in a traffic accident, ordering the at-fault driver and his insurance company to pay a total of CNY 186,276.18 in damages. The plaintiff, Mr. Song, sustained a ten-grade disability after being struck by a vehicle driven by Mr. He. The court found Mr. He fully liable and directed the insurance company to pay the compulsory insurance limit first, with Mr. He covering the remaining amount.
The accident occurred on June 5, 2011, at approximately 6:50 a.m. Mr. He was driving a small tractor with a tiller attachment when he lost steering control near the entrance of a textile company in Eastern China City. The vehicle struck Mr. Song, who was walking along the roadside, and also hit the company’s electric gate. Mr. Song suffered severe injuries and was hospitalized for 58 days. Medical expenses exceeded CNY 80,000. A forensic appraisal later classified his injury as a ten-grade disability. The traffic police determined Mr. He was fully responsible, and Mr. Song had no fault. Mr. He had purchased only compulsory motor vehicle insurance from an insurance company based in the same region.
During the court hearing, both parties presented evidence. Mr. Song provided medical records, expense receipts, a forensic report, proof of employment and residency, and a family register. The insurance company challenged the plaintiff’s claim for urban-standard disability compensation, arguing that Mr. Song held a rural household registration and had not demonstrated a stable urban income for the required period. Mr. He did not dispute the accident or liability but asked the court to verify all claimed amounts. The court examined the evidence, including the traffic accident report, medical documents, appraisal conclusions, and testimony from witnesses.
The court found that Mr. Song was indeed a rural resident but had lived and worked in Eastern China City since 2009. He held a temporary residence permit, worked at a local textile company, and lived in the company dormitory in an industrial park. His child was born in 2005 and resided with him. The court calculated total losses at CNY 186,276.18, comprising medical expenses (CNY 86,710.48), lost wages (CNY 17,220), nursing care (CNY 7,560), hospital meal subsidies (CNY 1,160), disability compensation including dependent living expenses (CNY 66,325.70), nutrition fees (CNY 1,800), emotional distress damages (CNY 3,000), transportation (CNY 500), and appraisal fees (CNY 2,000). Mr. He had already paid CNY 29,252.60, leaving a balance of CNY 157,023.58.
The court applied the Road Traffic Safety Law, which requires the compulsory insurer to pay up to the policy limit first. Here, the insurance company was ordered to pay CNY 104,605.70. The remaining balance was allocated to Mr. He. The court also addressed the disputed disability compensation standard. Citing judicial interpretations on personal injury, the court noted that while the law distinguishes between urban and rural residents in calculating disability damages, the purpose is to fairly compensate actual losses. Since Mr. Song had lived and worked in an urban area for over a year and his income and expenses mirrored those of urban residents, the court applied the urban standard. The court rejected the insurance company’s argument that dependent living expenses required a five-grade disability, noting that the relevant law does not set such a threshold.
This case highlights how courts in China increasingly consider the actual living and working circumstances of rural migrants rather than relying solely on household registration when determining personal injury damages. The ruling reaffirms that compulsory motor insurance provides a baseline for compensation, with the at-fault driver responsible for any excess. For individuals involved in similar accidents, the decision underscores the importance of documenting residency, employment, and income to support claims for urban-standard compensation.
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.