Road Traffic Accident Compensation Award – CNY 7,862
A personal injury lawsuit arising from a three-vehicle collision has resulted in a court order requiring an insurance company to pay compensation to an injured passenger. The plaintiff, Mr. Li, was a passenger on a bus when a semi-trailer truck rear-ended the bus, causing injuries to multiple passengers. The court found the truck driver fully at fault and held the insurer liable under both compulsory and commercial insurance policies.
The accident occurred on a road near a school in Eastern China City on July 28, 2011. Mr. Li was a passenger on a large public bus. A semi-trailer truck owned by Zhan Kun Transport Co., Ltd. and driven by Mr. Zhao rear-ended the bus. The truck then sideswiped a car. The collision injured Mr. Li and six other passengers and damaged all three vehicles. Traffic police determined that the truck driver bore full responsibility. Mr. Li suffered injuries requiring eight days of hospitalization between July 28 and August 5, 2011. He claimed medical expenses of CNY 4,617.09, lost wages of CNY 3,310.46, nursing care of CNY 1,527, meal subsidies of CNY 400, transportation costs of CNY 184, property damage of CNY 331 for broken eyeglasses, and CNY 500 for emotional distress.
During the court hearing, both the transport company and the insurance company appeared with legal representatives. Mr. Li presented evidence including a traffic accident report, hospital records, medical receipts, diagnostic certificates, taxi fare receipts, and his employment documents. The transport company argued that the vehicle was insured and that the insurer should pay. The insurance company requested that the court add the owner of the uninsured car involved in the accident as a defendant. The court reviewed all evidence and heard testimony from both sides.
The court held that the truck driver, as an employee of the transport company, was fully at fault for the accident. Because the truck and its trailer were insured under two compulsory motor vehicle liability insurance policies and two commercial third-party liability policies with the defendant insurance company, the insurer was obligated to pay within policy limits. However, since seven people were injured, the court reserved portions of the insurance coverage for the other six victims. The court denied the insurance company’s request to add the uninsured car owner as a defendant because the plaintiff’s bus did not directly contact that car and the plaintiff did not agree to the addition.
On legal analysis, the court applied tort law and the Road Traffic Safety Law. The court rejected the claim for emotional distress because Mr. Li’s injuries did not meet the legal threshold for such damages. For medical expenses, the court accepted the full amount of CNY 4,617.09 based on official receipts. For lost wages, the court noted that Mr. Li claimed a monthly income of CNY 6,307.65 but failed to provide tax payment documents required under law. The court therefore calculated lost wages using the average daily wage for the manufacturing industry, resulting in CNY 1,971.20 for 22 days of missed work. Similarly, nursing care was calculated at CNY 358.40 based on the hospital’s care levels and industry average wages. Transportation costs of CNY 184 and property damage of CNY 331 for eyeglasses were allowed. Meal subsidies were set at CNY 400 for eight days at CNY 50 per day, paid under the commercial policy.
In summary, the court ordered the insurance company to pay a total of CNY 7,861.69 in compensation, comprising medical expenses, lost wages, nursing care, transportation, property damage, and meal subsidies. All payments were to be made immediately upon judgment. The transport company was ordered to pay half of the court filing fee of CNY 75. The remaining claims were dismissed. This case highlights how courts allocate insurance coverage when multiple victims are involved in a single accident and how failure to provide tax documents can affect damage awards for lost income.
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.