Court Upholds CNY 573,279 Compensation in Fatal Traffic Accident
The Eastern China City Intermediate People’s Court has issued a final judgment in a fatal traffic accident case, awarding a total of CNY 573,279 in damages to the heirs of a deceased passenger. The case involved two fatalities, an employer’s vicarious liability, and insurance coverage disputes. The court ruled that the employer’s insurance company must pay within the compulsory insurance limits, while the employer and the deceased driver’s heirs bear the remaining losses in proportion to their fault.
On March 30, 2011, a light truck owned by Eastern China City Supplies Co., Ltd. and driven by Mr. Fu, an employee, collided with an electric bicycle operated by Mr. Wang Liuliu. The electric bicycle also carried a passenger, Ms. Jiang. Both Mr. Wang Liuliu and Ms. Jiang died from injuries sustained in the crash. The traffic authority determined that Mr. Fu and Mr. Wang Liuliu were equally at fault, and Ms. Jiang bore no responsibility. Ms. Jiang’s children, Ms. Wang Jia and Mr. Wang Yi, sued the company, the driver’s heirs (Mr. Wang Bing, Ms. Wang Ding, Mr. Wang Wu, and Ms. Wang Ji), and the insurance company for compensation totaling CNY 575,294.82.
During the hearing, the plaintiffs submitted medical expense records showing CNY 3,047.72 for Ms. Jiang’s emergency treatment, along with funeral and transport receipts. Evidence confirmed that Ms. Jiang had lived with her daughter in the urban area of Eastern China City since 2006, supporting her claim for urban resident compensation standards. The company admitted that Mr. Fu was acting within the scope of his employment and that the truck was insured under a compulsory traffic accident liability policy and a commercial third‑party liability policy with a CNY 500,000 limit, including a no-deductible clause. The insurance company agreed to pay under the compulsory policy but refused to handle the commercial policy in the same lawsuit.
The court found that the accident resulted from the combined negligent acts of Mr. Fu and Mr. Wang Liuliu, making both liable for Ms. Jiang’s death. Under Article 8 of the Tort Law, joint tortfeasors bear joint and several liability. Applying Article 76 of the Road Traffic Safety Law and relevant judicial interpretations, the court calculated total damages at CNY 573,279.42, including CNY 547,180 for death compensation, CNY 20,752.50 for funeral expenses, CNY 1,499.20 for lost income, and CNY 50,000 for moral damages. Compensation was reduced because the victim was not at fault, and the driver’s heirs were only liable within the scope of the deceased driver’s estate.
The key legal reasoning centered on the allocation of liability between the employer and the deceased driver’s estate. Since the accident occurred between a motor vehicle and a non‑motor vehicle, the court applied a 60/40 split, holding the employer responsible for 60% of the net losses (CNY 573,279.42 minus the compulsory insurance payout) plus CNY 25,000 in moral damages, and the driver’s heirs responsible for 40% plus CNY 20,000 in moral damages. After deducting the company’s advance payment of CNY 50,000, the company owed CNY 287,139, and the heirs owed CNY 228,092.68. The insurance company was ordered to pay CNY 58,047.72 from the compulsory policy. The court also noted that the company and the heirs are jointly and severally liable for the full compensation amount.
This case illustrates how courts apportion liability in multi‑party traffic accidents where both a negligent employee and a negligent victim contribute to the harm. The ruling reaffirms that employers are vicariously liable for employees’ on‑duty conduct, and that heirs who inherit assets from a deceased tortfeasor may be required to pay damages from the estate. The decision also highlights the strict separation between compulsory and commercial insurance coverage when the insurer does not consent to consolidated adjudication. The judgment is final and binding on all parties.
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.