Motorcycle Accident Judgment – CNY 311,385 Awarded
A civil dispute over a traffic accident involving a motorcycle and a truck has been resolved by a court in Southern China City. The plaintiff, Mr. Chen, who was a passenger on the motorcycle, sought compensation for injuries sustained in the collision. The court allocated liability between the two drivers and determined the insurance coverage applicable. After evaluating medical expenses, lost income, and other damages, the court issued a total award of CNY 311,385.45, with payments to be made by the defendants and the third-party insurer.
The accident occurred on January 1, 2011, in Southern China City. Mr. Lan drove a truck owned by a transport company, Southern City Hengtai Transport Co., Ltd., heading north. At an intersection, Mr. Liu drove a motorcycle carrying Mr. Chen. The motorcycle fell and then collided with the truck, causing injuries to both Mr. Chen and Mr. Liu. The police determined that Mr. Liu bore primary responsibility and Mr. Lan secondary responsibility. Mr. Chen filed a lawsuit seeking CNY 322,732.79 in damages, covering medical costs, lost wages, nursing fees, disability compensation, and other items. The truck was insured by a third-party insurer, China Dadi Property Insurance Co., Ltd. Southern China Branch, under compulsory and commercial policies.
The court held a hearing on February 22, 2012. Mr. Chen and his lawyer, Mr. Zhang, attended, along with Mr. Liu and his lawyers, Mr. Li and Mr. Chen. The insurer appeared through its lawyer, Mr. Wang. Mr. Lan and the transport company did not appear despite proper notice. Evidence submitted included the police accident report, medical records from Southern China City Hospital and its branch, employment contracts showing Mr. Chen had worked at a glass company since 2008, wage records, and forensic evaluations. A forensic institute assessed Mr. Chen’s disability as grade nine and estimated future surgery costs between CNY 7,800 and CNY 9,100.
The court accepted the police determination that Mr. Liu was 70% at fault and Mr. Lan was 30% at fault. Since both drivers violated traffic rules and caused the injury jointly, they were held jointly liable. The transport company, as owner of the truck, was also jointly liable for Mr. Lan’s share. The insurer was ordered to pay within the compulsory insurance limit of CNY 60,000 (half the total limit reserved for the other injured person), then under the commercial policy 30% of the remaining damages after deducting the compulsory payment and appraisal fees. Mr. Liu was ordered to pay 70% of damages after the compulsory portion.
The court itemized the compensable losses. Medical expenses totaled CNY 181,421.45. Lost wages were calculated at CNY 115 per day based on prior earnings, for 354 days until the disability assessment, minus wages already paid by the employer, resulting in CNY 33,060. Nursing fees were set at CNY 60 per day for 181 days of hospitalization, totaling CNY 10,860. The court allowed CNY 3,600 for hospital meals and CNY 3,600 for nutrition, based on 180 days. Disability compensation, calculated using the urban income standard because Mr. Chen’s main income came from city employment, was CNY 61,844. Transportation costs were assessed at CNY 800, future surgery at CNY 8,400, appraisal fees at CNY 1,800, and emotional distress damages at CNY 6,000. Total confirmed losses: CNY 311,385.45.
This case illustrates how courts in China apportion liability in multi-vehicle accidents and apply insurance coverage. The decision confirmed that a passenger injured while riding a motorcycle can recover from both drivers and their insurers. The court also emphasized that a plaintiff working in a city with a stable job and urban income qualifies for disability compensation based on urban standards rather than rural rates. For insurers, the ruling clarified that a 10% deductible for overloading, as argued by the insurer, was not applied due to insufficient evidence. The case provides a practical example of the damage calculation method used in personal injury litigation.
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.