Road Accident with Two Vehicles: Plaintiff Awarded 85,090.65 RMB in Damages for Personal Injury

Road Accident with Two Vehicles: Plaintiff Awarded 85,090.65 RMB in Damages for Personal Injury

Case Overview
In this case, a cyclist was injured in a collision involving two vehicles. The court in Eastern China found both drivers liable, apportioning 80 percent fault to one driver and 20 percent to the other. The plaintiff was awarded total damages of 85,090.65 RMB, with compensation to be paid by two insurance companies under compulsory insurance policies and by the at-fault drivers for amounts exceeding policy limits.

Case Background and Facts
The plaintiff, Mr. Ma, was riding a bicycle on a road in Eastern China on March 19, 2010. He was struck by a vehicle driven by Mr. Wu, who was attempting to avoid a vehicle driven by Mr. Zhang. Mr. Zhang was executing a left turn at an intersection. The collision caused Mr. Ma to fall, resulting in injuries and damage to his bicycle. Mr. Ma was taken to a hospital, where he received inpatient treatment from March 19 to April 21, 2010, and again from April 21 to May 2, 2010. A forensic evaluation later determined that Mr. Ma suffered a ruptured tear duct in his left eye, leading to permanent tearing, which constituted a level 10 disability. The traffic police determined that Mr. Wu bore primary responsibility for the accident and that Mr. Zhang bore secondary responsibility. Mr. Wu’s vehicle was insured by Company A, and Mr. Zhang’s vehicle was insured by Company B, both under compulsory traffic accident liability insurance policies.

Court Proceedings and Evidence
Mr. Ma filed a lawsuit seeking 64,292.68 RMB in damages from Mr. Wu, Mr. Zhang, and the two insurance companies. He argued that the insurance companies should pay within policy limits. Mr. Wu admitted liability but disputed the amounts claimed for certain losses. Mr. Zhang contested the police determination of fault, asserting that he had completed his left turn safely. Company A and Company B each argued that Mr. Ma’s claimed amounts for disability, nursing, transportation, and emotional distress were excessive, and they denied liability for lost income and appraisal fees. The court held two hearings, with all parties present at the first hearing. At the second hearing, the insurance companies were absent, and the court proceeded in their absence. The court admitted into evidence the police accident report, insurance policies, medical records, a forensic appraisal, medical expense receipts, an appraisal fee receipt, and wage documents showing Mr. Ma earned 1,500 RMB per month as a security guard. Mr. Wu submitted receipts for medical expenses he paid on Mr. Ma’s behalf, a receipt for nursing fees, and a property damage assessment. The court also reviewed the accident scene diagram and statements from both drivers.

Court Findings and Judgment
The court held that Mr. Wu’s negligence was the primary cause of the accident and assigned him 80 percent liability. The court found Mr. Zhang’s left turn was not completed safely, as his vehicle was found west of the intersection, not south, indicating a deviation from the intended path. The court assigned Mr. Zhang 20 percent liability. The court calculated Mr. Ma’s total losses as 85,090.65 RMB, including medical expenses of 50,515.55 RMB, disability compensation of 13,905.10 RMB, lost income of 9,000 RMB, nursing fees of 4,400 RMB, transportation costs of 200 RMB, hospitalization meal subsidies of 1,320 RMB, appraisal fees of 1,600 RMB, nutrition expenses of 2,000 RMB, emotional distress damages of 2,000 RMB, and property damage of 150 RMB. Under the compulsory insurance policies, Company A and Company B were each ordered to pay 24,827.55 RMB to Mr. Ma. For the remaining 35,435.55 RMB, Mr. Wu was ordered to pay 28,348.44 RMB, but after deducting the amounts he had already paid, Mr. Ma was required to return 20,384.26 RMB to Mr. Wu. Mr. Zhang was ordered to pay 7,087.11 RMB to Mr. Ma.

Key Legal Principles
The court applied the principle of proportionate liability based on fault in multi-vehicle accidents. It held that each driver’s insurer is liable for an equal share of damages within the compulsory insurance limits. The court also determined that a plaintiff over 60 years old may still claim lost income if they provide evidence of actual employment and earnings.

Practical Insights
This case illustrates the importance of documenting all losses with receipts, wage records, and forensic appraisals. It also shows that courts will examine physical evidence, such as vehicle positions, to determine fault when drivers dispute police findings. Plaintiffs should be prepared to justify claimed amounts, as insurers may challenge them as excessive.

Legal References
Road Traffic Safety Law of the Peoples Republic of China (2007), Article 76, Paragraph 1
Regulations on Compulsory Traffic Accident Liability Insurance for Motor Vehicles, Article 21, Paragraph 1
Supreme Peoples Court Interpretation on Compensation for Personal Injury, Articles 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25

Disclaimer
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified attorney for specific legal matters.