Image source network invasion and deletion)1.If a traffic accident causes damage to a person caused by driving a non-motor vehicle without fulfilling the duty of safety care, it shall bear the corresponding liability according to the fault - Ma v. Yang, a traffic accident compensation dispute case
Gist of the case:If the plaintiff and the defendant drive a non-motor vehicle and fail to fulfill their duty of safety care, resulting in a traffic accident causing personal injury to the plaintiff, they shall bear corresponding responsibility in accordance with their respective faults.
[Summary of the Facts].Ma and Yang are both employees of a company. At 6 a.m. on May 8, 2007, Ma rode a bicycle to work. When he was about to arrive at the unit, Yang, who was driving an electric bicycle, caught up, and the two chatted while driving. When talking and laughing, I didn't notice that the bikes of the two collided together. Ma suddenly lost his balance and fell to the ground, unconscious. Later, he was sent to the hospital**, where he was diagnosed with a right temporal subdural hematoma and a fracture of his left clavicle. After three hospitalizations**, Ma underwent internal fixation surgery and fixation surgery on the lateral segment of the left clavicle, and underwent craniotomy and skull defect repair surgery. Ma believed that the reason why he was injured was caused by Yang and himself riding a bicycle and chatting in parallel, so he sued the court and demanded compensation for medical expenses, lost work expenses, etc., totaling 150,000 yuan.
[Court Commentary].This case was a traffic accident caused by a collision between a non-motor vehicle. According to the provisions of Article 57 of the Road Traffic Safety Law, non-motorized vehicle drivers should abide by the relevant traffic management regulations, especially in China, a big bicycle country, cyclists should strictly abide by traffic rules. In this case, Ma and Yang were riding side by side, chatting, and did not concentrate on riding, resulting in a collision between the two bicycles. Because Ma and Yang did not call the police in time when the accident occurred, the traffic police did not go to the scene to investigate. Therefore, the traffic police detachment held that due to the change of the accident scene and the loss of evidence, it was impossible to verify the facts of the traffic accident, so the responsibility for the accident was not determined. Driving a non-motorized vehicle on the road should comply with the relevant traffic safety regulations, because Ma and Yang failed to fulfill their safety care obligations, resulting in the occurrence of accidents. Since it was impossible to restore the scene of the accident, the court finally determined that both parties were equally responsible based on the statements of both Ma and Yang.
Cause of action: Non-motor vehicle traffic accident liability dispute**: Faxin platform
2.If the perpetrator under the age of 16 drives an electric bicycle and has a traffic accident with the victim, causing personal injury to the victim, the legal guardian of the perpetrator shall bear the corresponding civil liability for compensation - Tang v. Lu, a non-motor vehicle traffic accident liability dispute
Gist of the case:Where minors cause harm in violation of the law, their guardians are liable for compensation. Where a minor under the age of 16 drives an electric bicycle and has a traffic accident with the victim, causing personal injury to the victim, the legal guardian of the perpetrator shall bear the corresponding civil liability for compensation.
[Summary of the Facts].In December 2020, 69-year-old Tang pushed a rickshaw to go shopping on the street. 14-year-old Lu was driving an electric bicycle and accidentally rear-ended and hit Tang's human-powered tricycle, causing a traffic accident in which Tang was injured and the vehicle was damaged. According to the traffic police, Lu bears all the responsibility for the accident. Tang's injuries were appraised and assessed as Grade 10 disability in three places. Tang filed a complaint and sued Lu, his guardian, and the insurance company to the court, demanding compensation for his various losses totaling more than 90,000 yuan.
The defendant insurance company argued that according to the law, it was necessary to be at least 16 years old to drive an electric bicycle, which was clearly stated in the insurance terms at the time of insurance. However, at the time of the accident, Lu was only 14 years old, and the insurance company refused to compensate for the accident caused by the use of electric vehicles in violation of the law, and asked the court to reject the plaintiff's claim against the insurance company.
The plaintiff argued that the insurance company refused to pay the claim on the grounds that the driver was under the age of 16, which was not indicated in the insurance policy, and there was no reason to refuse the claim, so the insurance company should compensate the full amount of 20,000 yuan according to the policy, and the insufficient part should be borne by the infringer Lu.
After trial, the court held that the perpetrator should bear tort liability for infringing on the civil rights of others due to his fault. The defendant Lu was only 14 years old, and he did violate laws and regulations by driving an electric bicycle on the road, and the insurance company's reasons for refusing compensation were established, and he should not be liable for compensation. If the defendant Lu X is not a minor, is a person with limited capacity for civil conduct, and causes damage to others, the guardian shall bear tort liability, and the guardian of the defendant Lu X shall be sentenced to compensate the plaintiff for the losses caused by the traffic accident.890,000 yuan.
[Court Commentary].With the continuous development of urban transportation, people's travel modes have become diversified, and electric bicycles are convenient and fast, and have become the first choice for many people. However, not everyone can drive electric bicycles, according to Article 72 of the "Regulations for the Implementation of the Road Traffic Safety Law of the People's Republic of China", you must be at least 16 years old to drive electric bicycles. If an accident occurs when driving an electric bicycle under the age of 16, according to Article 1188 of the Civil Code, if a person with no or limited capacity for civil conduct causes damage to others, the guardian shall bear tort liability. Where guardians perform their guardianship duties, their tort liability may be reduced. Therefore, the judge reminded that parents, as guardians of minor children, should fulfill their guardianship duties, educate minor children to consciously abide by traffic rules, pay attention to travel safety, and not drive electric bicycles in violation of regulations and laws.
Cause of action: Non-motor vehicle traffic accident liability dispute**: Faxin platform
3.If the owner of an electric vehicle violates the installation of a parasol and injures a passerby, he shall bear the corresponding civil liability for compensation - Li v. Tao, a non-motor vehicle traffic accident liability dispute
Gist of the case:There are serious safety hazards in the installation of parasols on electric bicycles, and the installation of parasols changes the center of gravity and balance point of the vehicle, destroys the stability of the vehicle body, and easily causes the driver's vision to be obstructed, increasing the risk of collision between the car and the pedestrian. If the owner of an electric vehicle violates the rules by installing a parasol and injuring a passerby, he shall bear the corresponding civil liability for compensation.
[Summary of the Facts].On the morning of October 15, 2021, Tao drove an electric bicycle with a parasol installed, carrying a child in the back seat, and when he drove to the crosswalk on the south side of the intersection of Wanghu Middle Road, due to negligence in observation, the parasol on the electric bicycle knocked down Li, an elderly man in his 70s, who was crossing the crosswalk, causing Li to fall to the ground and be injured.
After the trial, the court held that on the issue of whether the plaintiff Li's injury was caused by the collision of the defendant Tao's two-wheeled electric vehicle, because the original defendant held a contrary opinion, the fact should be comprehensively determined in combination with the evidence collected by the traffic police department at the time of the accident. Through the conversation of the traffic police department with the people present at the time of the incident, especially the statement of the defendant Tao's daughter Jiang, it can be confirmed that the electric bicycle parasol that the defendant Tao was riding touched Li's body, causing Li to be injured.
Since there was no surveillance facility to capture the accident at the time of the incident, it was not possible to confirm the status of the traffic lights when the two sides passed. However, through the accident certificate issued by the traffic police, it can be confirmed that the plaintiff Li crossed the road from west to east along the crosswalk on the south side of Wanghu Middle Road, and the accident site was close to the sidewalk of Chengkan Road. According to the statement of defendant Tao's daughter Jiang, "At 7:20 a.m. on October 15, 2021, I was late for school and ......It can be seen that Tao may have been in a hurry at the time of the incident. At the same time, Tao is riding an electric bicycle, and compared with pedestrians, Tao, as an electric bicycle driver, should pay more attention to observing the road conditions to ensure driving safety. Moreover, in the accident certificate, the traffic police department determined that Tao had violated the traffic safety law in the accident and was the cause of the accident. At the same time, Li, as a pedestrian, should also pay attention to the passing vehicles. Based on the above factors, the defendant Tao bears 80% of the responsibility for the accident in this case, deducting the 1,351 yuan he has already paid, and he still needs to compensate 9More than 50,000 yuan.
[Court Commentary].The installation of parasols on electric bicycles has serious safety hazards and is prone to cause traffic accidents. The parasol area is larger, and the installation of the parasol changes the center of gravity and the balance point of the vehicle, destroys the stability of the car body, and also easily causes the driver's vision to be obstructed, and increases the risk of collision between the car and the pedestrian. In recent years, there have been cases of accidents involving injuries to drivers caused by the detachment or deformation of the metal parts of parasols. In December 2021, Hefei issued the "Notice on Prohibiting the Installation of Awnings (Umbrellas) on Electric Bicycles" to carry out special rectification of illegal installation of awnings (umbrellas) on electric bicycles within the urban area. For the safety of themselves and others, car owners should consciously remove the installed parasols.
Subject matter: Non-motor vehicle traffic accident liability dispute**: People's Court Daily August 16, 2022 page 3
4.The direct infringer of the accident was a traffic accident that occurred during the execution of the delivery service, and there was a labor relationship with the outsourcing company, and the outsourcing company should bear the liability for compensation - Ma Da XX v. Li, an information technology company in Shanghai, a network technology in Henan, and an insurance company in a non-motor vehicle traffic accident liability dispute
Gist of the case:If the direct infringer of the accident is a traffic accident that occurred during the execution of the delivery service, it can be determined that the outsourcing company has a labor relationship with the outsourcing company in terms of managing it, settling expenses for it, purchasing insurance, etc., and the outsourcing company shall be liable for compensation for the infringement.
[Summary of the Facts].In the process of driving an electric car to deliver food to customers, Li Moumou, a delivery rider, collided with Ma Damoumou, who was driving an electric car, causing Ma Damoumou to be injured. The traffic management department determined that both parties were equally responsible for the accident. Later, Ma Damou was sent to the hospital for treatment, and was diagnosed with a fracture of the right lateral malleolus and the first in the right foot.
3. Open fracture of the fifth metatarsal. After the accident, Li believed that he should not pay for the medical expenses. Due to the failure of the negotiation between the two parties on the issue of compensation, Ma Damou sued Li, an information technology company in Shanghai, a network technology company in Henan, and an insurance company to the Zhongyuan District Court, demanding compensation for medical expenses, nursing expenses, nutrition expenses and other losses.
After trial, the court held that the defendant Li, as the direct infringer of the accident in this case, should bear tort liability, but the defendant Li was in a traffic accident during the execution of delivery services, and it can be determined that Li had a labor relationship with Li from the aspects of the outsourcing company's management of Li, settlement of expenses for Li, and purchase of insurance, etc., and that Li caused damage to the plaintiff while performing the work tasks of the outsourcing company, so the outsourcing company should be liable for Li's tortious acts. The defendant takeaway platform developer is only the operator of the takeaway platform, only provides information services, and does not manage the riders, so the plaintiff's demand that the takeaway platform developer bear the liability for compensation has no legal basis and is not supported by the court. The defendant insurance company underwrites comprehensive insurance for riders and shall be liable for compensation within its insurance limit as agreed in the contract. In the end, the court ruled that the defendant insurance company should compensate the plaintiff Ma Da for medical expenses, nutrition expenses, and nursing expenses totaling 12,4837 yuan, and the defendant outsourcing company compensated the plaintiff Ma Da for a total of 275 yuan in hospital meal subsidies and transportation expenses. After the judgment came into effect, the defendant voluntarily fulfilled its obligation to pay compensation.
[Court Commentary].Under the wave of the Internet platform economy, in order to better expand the market and expand the scope of business, food delivery platforms mostly use the subcontracting model to subcontract different areas to different delivery providers or partners, who are usually responsible for recruiting and managing delivery personnel in their own regions. With the Internetization of employment methods, the difficulty of confirming the labor relationship of delivery workers is also "upgrading and evolving", and the disputes caused by it are also facing new problems.
Therefore, the employer or platform management party that has a management relationship with the delivery staff needs to standardize the employment behavior, strengthen the management and training of the delivery personnel, enhance their traffic safety awareness and skill level, and seriously deal with the delivery personnel who violate traffic rules and often carry out warning education; At the same time, the purchase of insurance for the delivery staff can protect the personal rights and interests of the delivery staff on the one hand, and protect the rights and interests of the victims in the event of an accident on the other hand. Finally, and most importantly, it is necessary to remind the delivery staff to strictly abide by the traffic rules and drive safely during delivery.
Subject matter: Non-motor vehicle traffic accident liability dispute**: People's Court Daily, January 26, 2024, 3rd edition**: Faxin.