Court Upholds CNY 168,490.6 Award for Traffic Accident Victim
The Court of Appeal has upheld a compensation award of CNY 168,490.6 plus appraisal costs in a road traffic accident case. The dispute arose after a collision between a heavy truck and a motorcycle, leaving the motorcyclist seriously injured. The trial court had found the truck driver fully liable, and the insurance company appealed the decision, challenging several aspects of the damages calculation. The appellate court, after reviewing the evidence and legal arguments, dismissed the appeal in its entirety.
The accident occurred in Central China City on June 3, 2010, when a heavy truck driven by Mr. Chen collided with a motorcycle ridden by Mr. Feng. The collision happened as the truck turned right at an intersection, striking the motorcycle traveling in the same direction. Mr. Feng sustained severe injuries, including crush injuries to his left foot, fractures, and skin loss. He was first taken to a local hospital and then transferred to a specialized orthopedic hospital in the same city, where he remained for 82 days. The traffic police determined that Mr. Chen bore full responsibility for the accident, while Mr. Feng had no fault. The truck was registered with Central China City Huashun Freight Company and insured under a compulsory traffic insurance policy and a commercial policy with People’s Insurance Company of China Central China City Branch.
During the trial, the court examined several pieces of evidence. These included the traffic accident determination report from the local police, medical expense receipts from the orthopedic hospital, the insurance policies for the truck, and a forensic medical appraisal report. The appraisal, conducted at the request of Mr. Feng’s legal representative, classified his injuries as two separate level 9 disabilities under the applicable standard. Mr. Feng also submitted proof of his employment at a trading company in Shanghai, including a temporary residence permit, company certificates, and payroll records. The trial court heard testimony from the parties and considered all submitted documents before reaching its decision.
The trial court found that Mr. Chen, as the driver and owner of the truck, was liable for the full extent of Mr. Feng’s injuries. Since the truck was insured, the insurance company was required to pay within the policy limits. The court calculated damages based on statutory formulas, including medical expenses of CNY 29,508.3, transportation costs of CNY 3,800, lost income of CNY 25,200, nursing care costs of CNY 7,742.6, hospitalization allowances, nutrition expenses, and disability compensation of CNY 73,279.2. It also awarded CNY 20,000 for emotional distress and CNY 4,860.5 for dependents’ living expenses, totaling CNY 168,490.6, plus CNY 870 for the appraisal fee. The court ordered the insurance company to pay the main amount and Mr. Chen to pay the appraisal fee, with the freight company held jointly liable for that sum.
The insurance company appealed on nine grounds. It argued that Mr. Feng should bear responsibility for the accident, that his transfer to another hospital was unauthorized, and that various damages should be calculated based on rural rather than urban standards. The appellate court rejected each argument. It noted that the transfer was medically necessary due to the severity of the injuries, and that the evidence showed Mr. Feng was employed in Shanghai before the accident, justifying the use of urban income and disability standards. The court also confirmed that the emotional distress award was appropriate because Mr. Feng had no fault. Regarding the dependents’ living expenses, the court held that this item was separate from disability compensation under the applicable law at the time of the accident, which predated the Tort Liability Law of 2010.
The appellate court concluded that the trial court had correctly applied the law and properly evaluated the evidence. It emphasized that the accident occurred before the Tort Liability Law took effect, so the earlier judicial interpretation on personal injury compensation governed the case. Since Mr. Feng was entirely blameless, the emotional distress award was justified. The court dismissed all grounds of appeal and ordered the insurance company to pay the costs of the second instance. This judgment is final and binding. The case illustrates how courts assess damages in personal injury claims arising from traffic accidents, particularly when the victim has urban employment despite rural registration.
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.