Motor Vehicle Accident Liability Dispute Yields Award of CNY 21,501.97
The Eastern China City People’s Court has ruled in a personal injury case arising from a road traffic accident. The plaintiff, Mr. Wang, sought compensation for injuries sustained while a passenger on a fuel-assisted scooter. The defendant, Mr. Tao, was driving a minibus that collided with the scooter. The court found Mr. Tao primarily liable and ordered him to pay a total of CNY 21,501.97, after accounting for prior payments and the plaintiff’s voluntary waiver of a portion of the claim.
The accident occurred on October 3, 2011, when Mr. Tao drove a minibus along a county road. While evading an oncoming vehicle, he entered a non-motor vehicle lane and struck a fuel-assisted scooter operated by Mr. Li. The plaintiff, Mr. Wang, was a passenger on the scooter and suffered a right femoral fracture. The traffic police determined that Mr. Tao bore primary responsibility for the accident, with Mr. Li assigned secondary fault. Mr. Wang was hospitalized for 32 days, incurring medical expenses of CNY 27,307.49. He later adjusted his total claim to CNY 47,435.49, covering medical costs, lost wages, nursing fees, transportation, nutrition, and future treatment. Mr. Tao had already paid CNY 13,700 toward the plaintiff’s losses.
During the hearing, the court examined the hospital records and a certificate from the Second People’s Hospital of a local city, which confirmed the nature of the injury and recommended nursing care during hospitalization, three months of rest after discharge, and nutritional support. A forensic appraisal from a local university institute reviewed the medical bills and identified CNY 1,076.10 as unreasonable expenses, leaving CNY 26,231.39 in justified medical costs. The court also set transportation costs at CNY 300. Both parties’ legal representatives attended the trial and presented arguments. Mr. Tao’s vehicle was not insured under the compulsory traffic accident liability insurance scheme, a key fact that shaped the court’s approach to liability apportionment.
The court held that because Mr. Tao’s minibus lacked compulsory traffic insurance, he must first bear the losses that such insurance would normally cover, up to the statutory limit. The remaining damages were to be divided according to each party’s degree of fault. Mr. Wang voluntarily waived the portion of the claim attributable to Mr. Li’s contributory negligence, which the court accepted. After calculating all verified losses, the court found that CNY 22,468 fell within the compulsory insurance scope, and the remaining CNY 18,191.39 should be apportioned with Mr. Tao responsible for 70 percent, or CNY 12,733.97. Deducting the prior payment of CNY 13,700 left a balance of CNY 21,501.97.
The court’s legal analysis applied the principle that a motor vehicle without compulsory insurance shifts the primary compensation burden to the owner. Under the Tort Liability Law and the Road Traffic Safety Law, the defendant was obliged to compensate up to the insurance limit before any fault-based division. The court also relied on the Judicial Interpretation on Personal Injury Damages to quantify items such as lost wages, nursing fees, and nutrition. Notably, the plaintiff’s claim for future treatment costs was deferred, with the court stating that those expenses could be pursued separately if they materialize. The judgment explicitly rejected several claimed amounts, including the portion of medical fees deemed unreasonable and an inflated transportation request.
This case underscores the importance of maintaining compulsory traffic insurance, as its absence exposes the vehicle owner to full initial liability within the statutory cap. For plaintiffs, the ruling demonstrates that even when the injured party’s own driver shares fault, recovery may still be substantial if the insured vehicle’s owner bears primary responsibility. Practitioners should note that courts will carefully scrutinize medical expenses and limit awards to reasonable and necessary costs. The judgment also confirms that voluntary waiver of a co-tortfeasor’s share does not affect the remaining defendant’s liability under the fault-based apportionment framework.
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.