Street Vendor Injury Dispute Leads to CNY 19,889 Claim
The Eastern China City People’s Court recently ruled on a personal injury case between two street food vendors who became embroiled in a physical altercation over stall placement. The plaintiff, Mr. Li, sought damages totaling CNY 19,889.16 for injuries sustained when the defendant, Ms. Chen, bit his finger during a quarrel. The court found both parties partially at fault and awarded Mr. Li a reduced amount after accounting for his own contributory negligence.
The dispute arose on August 12, 2011, when Mr. Li and Ms. Chen, whose food stalls were adjacent, argued over territorial boundaries. According to Mr. Li, after he complained about Ms. Chen blocking the road, she began shouting, and the verbal exchange escalated. During the confrontation, Ms. Chen bit Mr. Li’s left ring finger. He was diagnosed with a tendon rupture and lacerations, requiring surgery and eight days of hospitalization at Eastern China City No. 7 Hospital. Mr. Li claimed medical expenses of CNY 4,189.16, nursing care for 60 days, lost income for 90 days, and other costs. Ms. Chen countersued, alleging that Mr. Li had struck her with a rolling pin and choked her, and that she had acted in self-defense.
At trial, the court examined evidence including medical records, receipts, a forensic鉴定 report, and police statements. Mr. Li submitted hospital records and expense invoices, while Ms. Chen provided her own medical documents, which the court largely rejected due to their proximity to the incident and lack of corroboration. The court also reviewed police interview transcripts and a receipt showing Ms. Chen had already paid Mr. Li CNY 2,000. Both parties disputed the accuracy of the police records, but the court gave them weight absent contrary evidence.
The court found that the altercation was mutual and that Mr. Li had provoked the physical exchange by first striking Ms. Chen. Under applicable law, each party’s fault reduces the other’s liability. The court determined that Mr. Li bore 40 percent responsibility and Ms. Chen 60 percent. It upheld most of Mr. Li’s medical costs and the undisputed hospitalization food allowance but reduced his lost income claim to 60 days based on the severity of his injury and the treatment timeline. Nursing care was limited to the eight days of hospitalization, and the nutrition award was cut to CNY 200.
Legally, the court applied the principle that a person who causes injury must compensate for reasonable medical and rehabilitation expenses, as well as lost earnings. However, when the victim contributes to the harm, the damages are proportionally reduced. The court also emphasized that a party challenging the necessity of medical treatment must provide supporting evidence. Since Ms. Chen failed to prove that Mr. Li’s wound infection was self-inflicted, her objection to the medical bills was dismissed. The court used the local average wage rate to calculate Mr. Li’s lost income because his self-employment income was not fixed.
In the end, the court ordered Ms. Chen to pay 60 percent of the verified damages (CNY 11,468.16), totaling CNY 6,881, minus the CNY 2,000 already paid, leaving a balance of CNY 4,881. Mr. Li’s remaining claims were denied. The case illustrates how courts allocate fault in brawls between small business owners and highlights the importance of documentary evidence when disputing medical necessity. Vendors and other self-employed individuals should be aware that lost income calculations may rely on standard wage data rather than claimed earnings.
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.