Court Upholds Traffic Accident Liability and Insurance Payout of CNY 189,710
A Chinese appeals court has upheld a lower court ruling in a traffic accident case, ordering an insurer to pay CNY 120,000 and a driver to pay CNY 69,710 in damages to a pedestrian who was seriously injured on an expressway. The decision clarifies the allocation of fault between a pedestrian and a driver, the scope of compulsory insurance coverage, and the priority of mental distress compensation within the insurance payout. The case involved multiple parties, including the injured pedestrian, the driver who hit him, the truck owner, and the insurance company.
The accident occurred on July 1, 2010, at around 4:25 a.m. on a highway in Eastern China City. Mr. Liu was driving a heavy truck registered to Eastern China City Freight Co., with insurance from Eastern China City Branch of a major insurer. Mr. Li, a pedestrian, was moving within the traffic lanes after alighting from another truck that had broken down and stopped. Mr. Liu’s truck struck Mr. Li, then rear-ended a third truck that was parked in the lanes. The traffic police determined that Mr. Gao, the driver of the parked truck, bore primary responsibility for the damage to vehicles and property but not for Mr. Li’s injuries. Mr. Li was found equally responsible for his own injuries, and Mr. Liu was also found equally responsible for those injuries. Mr. Li suffered severe injuries, including a right arm amputation, and was hospitalized for 38 days with medical expenses of CNY 23,758.60.
At the first-instance hearing, the court examined evidence including the police accident report, medical records, and cost receipts. Mr. Li claimed total losses of approximately CNY 350,998.60, including medical costs, lost income, disability damages, and mental distress compensation of CNY 25,000. The lower court calculated his total compensable loss at CNY 236,183.85. It ordered the insurer to pay CNY 120,000 within the compulsory insurance limits and Mr. Liu to pay 60% of the remaining loss, or CNY 69,710.31, with Eastern China City Freight Co. held jointly liable as the truck’s registered owner. Both the insurer and the freight company appealed, arguing over whether another driver and his insurer should be added as defendants and whether mental distress compensation should be paid from insurance.
The appeals court affirmed the lower court’s findings. It held that the parked truck driver, Mr. Gao, did not cause Mr. Li’s injuries because the initial impact was from Mr. Liu’s truck. Therefore, there was no causal link between Mr. Gao’s illegal parking and Mr. Li’s harm, and Mr. Gao was not a proper defendant. The court also rejected the insurer’s argument that the accident’s authenticity should be questioned. On the issue of mental distress compensation, the court noted that under relevant judicial interpretations, an injured person has the right to choose the order of compensation between material and mental damages within the compulsory insurance limit. Since Mr. Li’s claim included CNY 25,000 for mental distress, the insurer was required to prioritize that amount in the CNY 120,000 payout.
The court’s legal analysis centered on Article 76 of the Traffic Safety Law, which governs liability between motor vehicles and pedestrians. When a pedestrian is at fault, the driver’s liability is reduced proportionally. Here, Mr. Liu bore 60% of the remaining loss after insurance. The court also applied the principle that a vehicle owner or operator is jointly liable when the vehicle is registered under a freight company as a nominal owner. On the insurance priority question, the court cited a specific judicial reply confirming that a claimant may request mental distress compensation first within the compulsory insurance limit, and the insurer must comply.
This case confirms that in traffic accidents involving pedestrians and multiple vehicles, courts will closely examine causal links before adding additional defendants. It also reinforces that injured parties can choose to have mental distress damages paid first from compulsory insurance, a point often disputed by insurers. The decision provides practical guidance for victims seeking full compensation and for insurers handling claims where mental distress is claimed. All parties should note that clear evidence of fault allocation and causal relationships is critical in such multi-vehicle incidents.