Selected traffic accidents notified by people's courts (as of 20 12-02-26)
Table of Contents (***50 cases)
(1) Refusing to claim compensation without being informed, and determining that losses should be compensated.
(two) the insurance contract is unclear, mental loss claims.
(three) driving without a license garbage removal killed people, the village committee shall bear the responsibility for negligence in selecting people.
(four) two people were killed or injured in a car accident, and compulsory insurance was distributed in proportion.
(five) to be responsible for the accident caused by the unauthorized sale of scrapped vehicles.
(six) did not sign the insurance policy, not exempt from the standard terms.
(seven) it is difficult to determine the responsibility for site change, which shall be confirmed by the court.
(eight) the owner did not buy the compulsory insurance and took responsibility for the accident.
(nine) after the accident of the "used car" policy is corrected, if the insurer agrees to renew the insurance, it shall make compensation.
(ten) lost license plate is not declared, the accident responsibility.
(eleven) driving without a license accident, the insurance company should still pay.
(12) The automobile company was sentenced to pay compensation for an accident while driving a vehicle that was not delivered to the buyer.
(13) If a company employee is dismissed due to a traffic accident, the court will increase the disability compensation.
(fourteen) unauthorized driving accident, the owner is at fault with the responsibility.
(15) The court ordered the insurance company to pay for the insurance compensation dispute caused by passengers falling from the car.
(16) If the insurance company refuses to pay compensation, it will not pay compensation if it is unclear.
(seventeen) the one-time compensation agreement signed after the accident is legal, and the parties may not unilaterally go back on their word.
(eighteen) if the license plates before and after the car are different, causing the death of others, the driver, the owner and the insurance company belonging to the front and back of the car shall bear the responsibility together.
(19) A personal injury compensation case in Xiamen was finalized, and migrant workers were compensated 500,000 yuan according to the standard of urban residents.
(20) Three drivers were sentenced to prison for overloading the viaduct and paid huge compensation.
(twenty-one) if the second-hand car is not transferred to the road, the court finds that the insurance company claims within the insurance scope.
(twenty-two) due to accidents caused by highway drying wheat, the management department is responsible for dereliction of duty.
(twenty-three) special vehicles should also abide by traffic laws and regulations to ensure safety, and make compensation for ambulances.
(twenty-four) the fetus died in a traffic accident, and the spiritual comfort fund shall be supported.
(twenty-five) in good faith, the driver is responsible for the accident.
(twenty-six) the father was killed in a car accident, and the posthumous child advocated alimony and supported it.
(twenty-seven) compensation for serious injuries and secondary epilepsy in traffic accidents.
(twenty-eight) the car accident caused premature delivery of pregnant women, and the court found that the death of the newborn should be compensated.
(twenty-nine) if the driver of the wedding car causes a traffic accident, the owner shall bear joint and several liability.
(thirty) if the expenses exceed the compulsory insurance, the compensation shall be distributed in proportion.
(31) If the father ran over his son without a license, the mother sued the insurance company for compensation.
(thirty-two) during the change of vehicle insurance, the insurance company shall bear the insurance liability.
(thirty-three) if the responsibility for the accident is unclear, the insurance company will compensate.
(thirty-four) road bricklaying, poor management is the responsibility.
(thirty-five) compulsory discharge after injury, and share the losses.
(thirty-six) in the event of a driving accident with inconsistent license plates, the insurance company may refuse compensation.
(thirty-seven) the driver caused a car accident without permission, and the owner should also share the responsibility for negligence.
(thirty-eight) the driver stops and leaves the car in disorder, and the passengers open the door and hurt the pedestrians. The three parties shall jointly bear the responsibility.
(39) The insurance company does not bear the responsibility of compulsory insurance for accidents that do not actually hit people —— Jiangsu Changzhou Intermediate People's Court changed the case of Li Huarong and others v. insurance company for personal injury compensation in traffic accidents.
(forty) four migrant workers died in a car accident, according to the standard of urban residents compensation.
(forty-one) the application of emergency avoidance in road traffic accident personal injury compensation cases.
(42) The civil part of the Henan "1.2 1" traffic accident case was pronounced in the first instance, and six defendants compensated six relatives of the deceased 1.9 million.
(43) After deducting 12 points, the driver still caused an accident, and the insurance company refused to pay compensation and refused to support it.
(44) There is no legal connection between the death compensation and the calculation of the number of years of living for the dependents —— Shanghai No.1 Intermediate People's Court ruled that Wang Guozhen et al. v. Chen Wei et al.
(forty-five) car rollover and disabled passengers, free ride also have to pay.
(forty-six) illegal speed bumps, accidents are also responsible.
(forty-seven) the accident occurred during the vehicle repair, the uninsured owner should bear the responsibility.
(forty-eight) if the driver is injured by drunk driving, the insurance company shall be responsible for compensation within the scope of compulsory insurance.
(forty-nine) the accident caused the vehicle to depreciate, and the responsible party shall compensate according to law.
(fifty) although the accident has been handled, the lost items should still be compensated.
The content is provided by Yingke lawyer. com。
(1) Refusing to claim compensation without being informed, and determining that losses should be compensated.
2006
In August 2008, Yemou signed a property insurance contract with an insurance company for his car, stipulating that the third party liability insurance was 6,543,800 yuan. On September 16 of the same year, Yemou collided with a tricycle on the way to send his colleague Xiaojin home, causing Xiaojin to die. After the accident, Yemou called 1 10 to call the police, and after being handled by the traffic police, he was determined to be fully responsible for the accident. The court ordered Ye to compensate the victim Xiaojin 1.3 million yuan. Hou handed over the relevant claim materials to an insurance company, but the insurance company refused to make a claim on the grounds that it was not informed in time. In February of this year, Yemou appealed to the court and asked the insurance company to pay 80,000 yuan for the third party liability insurance.
During the trial, an insurance company of the defendant argued that according to the contents of the insurance policy signed by both parties, Yemou should report the case to the defendant within 48 hours after the accident, otherwise the defendant could not verify the accident loss, so the defendant refused to settle the claim.
After hearing the case, the court held that although Yemou did not report the case to the defendant within 48 hours, he called the police at 1 10, and the scene of the accident was under the control of the traffic police detachment, so there was no situation of expanding losses; And the accident loss has been determined by the effective legal documents, and there is no situation in which the loss cannot be determined. Accordingly, the Songjiang District People's Court of Shanghai first-instance ruled that an insurance company of the defendant compensated the plaintiff for the third party liability insurance premium of 80,000 yuan. (2008.7.8)
(two) the insurance contract is unclear, mental loss claims.
In April 2006, Plaintiff Liu insured his vehicle against third party liability insurance, vehicle personnel liability insurance, vehicle loss insurance, glass breakage insurance and special insurance without deductible in Qingdao Branch of an insurance company of the defendant.
On June 5438+ 10, 2007, a traffic accident occurred on the insured vehicle, resulting in Zhang's death on the spot. After the traffic accident was decided by the court, the plaintiff Liu compensated the family of the deceased Zhang for various losses totaling138,000 yuan. Afterwards, when Liu asked the defendant to settle the claim, the defendant refused to settle the claim on the grounds that the loss caused by the plaintiff included mental damage compensation 3000 yuan, which was not within the scope of the defendant's claim according to the insurance regulations.
After hearing the case, the People's Court of Donggang District, Rizhao City, Shandong Province held that the defendant had no evidence to prove that when he signed the insurance contract with the plaintiff, he clearly agreed on the terms of refusing to compensate for mental losses. Therefore, the defendant should compensate for the mental loss of 3000 yuan. On May 4th, the first instance ruled that the defendant Qingdao Branch of an insurance company compensated the plaintiff Liu138,000 yuan in insurance money.
(three) driving without a license garbage removal killed people, the village committee shall bear the responsibility for negligence in selecting people.
One morning in June 2007, Wang drove an untested tractor with an invalid driver's license to remove garbage. When he drove to a fork in the road, he met an unlicensed motorcycle from driving without a license, and the two cars collided. He died unfortunately because he didn't wear a helmet. Afterwards, Wang paid part of the stolen money to the family of the deceased and was sentenced to one year in prison. The traffic police department determined that Wang was mainly responsible for the traffic accident and Yu was mainly responsible. Because Wang cleaned up garbage for a village Committee, in September of that year, a family member filed a complaint against Wang and the village Committee, claiming that the village Committee hired Wang and demanded that the two defendants also compensate for all the losses.
More than ten thousand yuan.
In court, Wang's claim for compensation from the family members of the deceased was only partially problematic, while the village committee said that it should not be taken as the defendant. After the incident, considering the situation of the family members of the deceased, the village committee took the initiative to lend the family members of the deceased 70,000 yuan, requesting the court to reject the claim of the family members of the deceased against the village committee.
According to the judge who heard the case, Wang accepted the entrustment of the village Committee and used his tractor to remove garbage for the village Committee. The village Committee paid the cleaning freight regularly, and a contractual relationship was formed between Wang and the village Committee. Because the accident happened when Wang drove a vehicle with an invalid driver's license to clear the garbage, the village Committee made a mistake in selecting and should bear 30% of the compensation liability.
According to the judge, contracting generally means that one party completes certain work and delivers the work results according to the requirements of the other party, and the other party accepts the work results and pays the remuneration. There is often confusion between contracting and employment. In judicial practice, it is generally believed that if there is a relationship of control, domination and subordination between the two parties, one party will designate the workplace, provide labor tools or equipment, limit working hours and pay labor remuneration regularly. The labor provided is an integral part of the recipient's production and business activities and can be regarded as employment, and vice versa.
According to the law, if the contractor causes damage to a third party or himself during the completion of the work, the hirer shall not be liable for compensation. However, if the ordering party is at fault in ordering, instructing or selecting, it shall bear the corresponding liability for compensation. Among them, there is a fault in the choice, which means that the appointee has obvious fault in choosing the undertaker. In this case, the village Committee should have known in advance whether Wang was qualified to drive, but the village Committee did not know the situation, but let Wang be responsible for garbage removal, which led to the accident. Therefore, the village committee should bear the corresponding liability for compensation.
(four) two people were killed or injured in a car accident, and compulsory insurance was distributed in proportion.
On June 22nd, 2007, the plaintiff, Yang Chunmin, drove a heavy truck with a special structure and collided with a medium-sized van driven by the hired driver Chen Yumu on the Shanghai-Hangzhou Expressway, causing injuries to Yang Chunmin and the passengers on board, and died after being rescued. In February 2008, Yang Chun, the plaintiff, and Xu Kui, the family of the deceased, respectively filed a lawsuit in Haining Court, demanding that the insurance company bear the liability within the compulsory liability insurance limit.
The court held that the compensation limit of compulsory insurance refers to the amount of an accident, and when there are multiple victims, they should be distributed according to their respective loss ratios.
Accordingly, the People's Court of Haining City, Zhejiang Province ruled on July 2, 20081that the insurance company should compensate the parties who died and were injured in the same traffic accident according to the losses of the parties, including the plaintiff Yang Chunmin 17000 yuan and the relatives of Xu Kui 40000 yuan. (2008.7.25)
(five) to be responsible for the accident caused by the unauthorized sale of scrapped vehicles.
On March 9, 2007, Luo Nanhai, a farmer in Jinchuan Township, bought an unlicensed scrapped tractor from Hongshanfa, a neighboring village, for 4380 yuan. The next day, when Wang Jibo, a relative of Luo Nanhai, drove a tractor to the "Placenta Stone" section, he asked Luo to learn to drive in the co-pilot position and guide himself. Due to improper operation, the tractor fell into the river on the left side of the road not far away. Wang died on the spot and Luo was injured. Confirmed by the traffic police department, Luo took full responsibility for the accident.
On March 29, Luo and Wang's family reached an agreement, and Luo compensated 39,000 yuan. On June 28th, Shexian County Court sentenced Luo to six months' imprisonment and suspended for one year for traffic accident. On October 9th, 65438/KLOC-0, Wang's wife and two sons sued Hongshan for selling tractors, claiming that Hongmou's sales behavior was one of the causes of the accident and demanded compensation for various losses.
30% is 40 thousand yuan. Hongmou believes that it only sells waste products, and there is only a buying and selling relationship with Luo, which has no causal relationship with the damage results claimed by the plaintiff and should not bear any responsibility.
The People's Court of Shexian County, Anhui Province indirectly determined that the defendant was responsible for the accident 15% and compensated the victim's family for the loss 18479.74 yuan.
The defendant refused to accept the judgment and appealed. Huangshan Intermediate People's Court made a final ruling, dismissed the appeal and upheld the original judgment.
In this case, the defendant violated the mandatory provisions of the state on the recycling of scrapped vehicles and sold the scrapped vehicles without authorization, causing the scrapped vehicles to drive on the road, which objectively caused potential danger to the lives and property of others. The defendant's selling behavior was indirectly combined with Luo and Wang's dangerous behavior, which actually led to a major traffic accident, so the defendant should bear corresponding civil liability.
The form of indirect joint tort is a kind of joint tort, which refers to the combination of dynamic behavior and static behavior. Of course, the dynamic and static behaviors here are only relative concepts, and their reference is the process of damaging the results. Specifically, a part of the causality of tort is to actively carry out an act, which is the possibility of the damage result and the direct cause of the damage.
In this case, Luo Nanhai's illegal driving is the main reason; Another part of causality is to provide conditions for the occurrence of damage. This causal behavior violates the provisions of relevant laws and regulations and belongs to indirect harm. The combination of the two causes damage to the facts. In this case, the defendant violated the mandatory provision in Article 12 of the State Council's Measures for the Administration of Scrap Car Recycling that "no unit or individual may sell, give away or otherwise transfer the scrapped cars to units or individuals that are not scrap car recycling enterprises". (2008.6.3)
(six) did not sign the insurance policy, not exempt from the standard terms.
On September 5, 2005, the plaintiff insured the third party liability insurance for his taxi from a property insurance company of the defendant, with a limit of 50,000 yuan. After collecting the relevant premium from the plaintiff, the defendant issued an insurance policy of third party liability insurance to the plaintiff, but the plaintiff himself did not sign the insurance policy. On June 365438+1October 3 1 day, 2006, the driver hired by the plaintiff ran away from the scene after hitting two pedestrians with a taxi. When the plaintiff learned about it, he immediately reported the case and sent the car to the traffic police department, and found that the driver was fully responsible. The plaintiff compensated the two victims for various expenses totaling more than 40,000 yuan. Later, the plaintiff filed a claim with the defendant, and the defendant decided that the accident escape of the insured vehicle did not belong to the insurance liability and did not compensate.
After trial, the court held that the motor vehicle insurance contract was signed by the original defendant and the defendant based on the true meaning of both parties, and the insurance contract was legal and valid. The exemption clause on the liability of compensation in the insurance policy is a standard clause, which contains the content that the insurance company will not compensate the insured vehicle for hit-and-run However, the plaintiff didn't sign the contract, which can't prove that the defendant drew the plaintiff's attention and explained it reasonably, so it can't exempt the defendant from the liability of a property insurance company.
Recently, the People's Court of Aimin District, Mudanjiang City, Heilongjiang Province ruled in the first instance that a property insurance company of the defendant paid the plaintiff He Dongying insurance compensation of RMB 43 185.60. (2008.5.29)
(seven) it is difficult to determine the responsibility for site change, which shall be confirmed by the court.
On June 5438+1October1August, 2006, a pedestrian Zhao was injured by driving in Jingang Town, Zhangjiagang City. Due to the rain that night, Lu was eager to send Zhao to the hospital for rescue, and the two sides did not call the police at the scene. The next day, Lu Shihua reported the case to the Earth Insurance Company that underwrote the car. Because the scene of the accident changed, the traffic police department could not verify all the facts of the accident and did not identify the responsibility. In September of the same year, Zhao filed a lawsuit in court, demanding compensation for losses. In our opinion, the motor vehicle party has no evidence to prove that Zhao is at fault and should bear all the liability for compensation. Therefore, the judgment compensated Zhao for economic losses of more than 39,000 yuan. After fulfilling the obligation of compensation, Lu did not apply for compensation from the insurance company, so he filed a lawsuit with the court. The insurance company believes that due to Lu's own reasons, the size of the liability cannot be confirmed, and it is required to reconfirm the liability and pay in proportion.
The court held that the plaintiff, Lu Shihua, failed to report to the police in time after the accident, which led to changes in the scene, and the traffic police department did not identify the responsibility, but the court could identify the responsibility of the accident according to the facts in the trial of the case. At present, the effective legal documents of the court have ruled that Lu Shihua is fully responsible for the accident, which is legal and valid and should be recognized.
Recently, the People's Court of Zhangjiagang City, Jiangsu Province ruled that the defendant Dida Insurance Company compensated the plaintiff Lu Shihua for more than 39,000 yuan. (2008.5.27)
(eight) the owner did not buy the compulsory insurance and took responsibility for the accident.
On April 25th, 2007, around 9: 30/kloc-0, the defendant Ye Changcheng collided with the plaintiff Huang Jianjun's bicycle while driving Gu Huixin's unlicensed "Wuyang WY 125", causing injuries to the plaintiff. Changshu Public Security Bureau issued a letter of responsibility confirmation, which confirmed that Ye Changcheng was fully responsible for the accident, while Huang Jianjun was not responsible for the accident. According to judicial appraisal, the plaintiff Huang Jianjun suffered a fracture of his left ankle and left fibula due to a traffic accident, and his injury has constituted a grade 10 disability. After the accident, the defendant Gu Huixin paid 10000 yuan to the plaintiff.
Later, the plaintiff sued Ye Changcheng, the perpetrator, and Gu Huixin, the owner of the "Wuyang WY 125" two-wheeled motorcycle, demanding compensation for losses. Defendant Gu Huixin argued that Ye Changcheng was driving a motorcycle without his consent, so he did not agree to assume the responsibility of the owner. The court found through trial that Gu Huixin, the owner of the motorcycle, did not go through the motorcycle registration formalities according to the relevant regulations, nor did he go through the compulsory insurance for motor vehicle traffic accident liability with the insurance company according to the regulations, which was an insurance fault.
On May 27th, 2008, the People's Court of Changshu City, Jiangsu Province ruled in the first instance that the defendant owner Gu Huixin was liable for compensation within the scope of compulsory insurance, and the defendant Ye Changcheng was liable for the excess. (2008.5.27)
(nine) after the accident of the "used car" policy is corrected, if the insurer agrees to renew the insurance, it shall make compensation.
On July 23, 2007, the outsider Han (the original owner) took out compulsory motor vehicle accident liability insurance for Su Fe 45 1 Santana car in an insurance company of the defendant, and also took out a family car insurance (commercial insurance) for the car in the above insurance company, including motor vehicle loss insurance, third party liability insurance and special insurance without odds. The insurance period is from 0: 00 on August 5, 2007 to 24: 00 on August 4, 2008. The express notice of the family car insurance policy reads: "4. If the insured car is resold, transferred, given to others or changed for use, it shall notify the insurer in writing and go through the correction procedures. " Article 6 of the third party liability insurance clause and Article 6 of the motor vehicle loss insurance clause both stipulate that the insurer shall not be liable for compensation if the insured motor vehicle is transferred to another person without going through the correction procedures with the insurer.
On June 9, 2007 10, Han transferred the insurance vehicle to Huang Qian, the plaintiff in this case. The next day, Huang Qian's car collided with Zhao Rongxiang's electric bicycle, causing passenger Wang Xiaohong to die after being rescued. On the 24th of the same month, the traffic police department made a traffic accident determination, and determined that Huang Qian and Zhao Rongxiang were equally responsible for the accident, while Wang Xiaohong was not responsible. On February 26th this year, the relevant departments made a disability assessment, and confirmed that Zhao Rongxiang's pelvic injury was grade 10 disability.
On the day of the accident, Huang Qian applied to the defendant's insurance company for policy correction, and the insurance company handled the compulsory insurance approval form on the same day, agreeing that from 2007,
The insured changed from Korea to Huang Xi on1Oct1KLOC-0/2008. On the same day, Huang Qian applied to the defendant's insurance company for the correction of the family car insurance (commercial insurance) policy. The insurance company agrees to change it, and other conditions remain unchanged. Subsequently, Huang Qian asked the defendant's insurance company to settle claims, and the insurance company refused to pay compensation on the grounds that the insured motor vehicle was transferred to others and did not go through the correction procedures with the insurance company, causing disputes.
The judge said that commercial insurance should not be compared with compulsory insurance.
The focus of the dispute in this case is whether the insurance company should bear the responsibility of commercial insurance if a traffic accident occurs when the commercial insurance policy is not corrected in time. In recent years, in the implementation of compulsory insurance, the effect of compulsory insurance has been unified in judicial practice, that is, after motor vehicles are insured with compulsory insurance, no matter how many times the vehicle is transferred, even if the insurance company does not correct the policy, it will not affect the effect of compulsory insurance, and the insurance company will be liable to the third party in the accident according to the insurance contract under any circumstances. Then, can commercial insurance contracts be compared with compulsory insurance?
The presiding judge believes that commercial insurance should not be compared with compulsory insurance. He said that property right is an absolute right and exclusive; Creditor's right is a kind of relative right, with a specific counterpart. Usually, once a contract is established, the creditor-debtor relationship is formed between the parties, and the parties to the contract are also specific. Unless otherwise provided by law, the parties to an insurance contract are relatively specific. One of the parties to a commercial insurance contract is the insured owner and the other is the insurance company. The contract is only valid between these specific parties. After the owner changes, the insurance contract will be revised by the insurance company, and a new contractual relationship will be formed between the new owner and the insurance company, and the insurance company will bear the responsibility according to the new contract. If the insurance contract has not been corrected by the insurance company, since the original insurance contract is only valid for the original owner, the original contract naturally has no legal effect on the new owner. Compulsory traffic insurance breaks the original principle of contract relativity, and can only be regarded as a special case stipulated by law, and cannot be generalized by particularity. In the absence of special provisions in the law, we should still adhere to the relativity of contracts.
Article 34 of the Insurance Law of People's Republic of China (PRC) stipulates: "The insurer shall be informed of the transfer of the subject matter insured, and the contract shall be changed according to law after the insurer agrees to continue underwriting. However, unless otherwise agreed in the cargo transportation insurance contract and the contract. " Then, before the accident in this case, the contract was not changed according to law. Why did the court decide that the insurance company should bear the responsibility? This essentially involves the legal effect of ratification in civil law. In this case, after the insurance accident, the plaintiff Huang Qian immediately reported the case to the defendant's insurance company. After receiving the report, the defendant entrusted others to carry out the survey on his behalf, knowing that the insurance vehicle had an accident. In this case, the defendant still went through the formalities of correcting the insurance policy for the plaintiff, and stated in the insurance approval form that other conditions remained unchanged. It should be deemed that he has assessed and recognized the increased risks and agreed to continue underwriting, so the benefits of the insurance contract have been transferred to the plaintiff with the transfer of the insured vehicle, and the defendant should be liable for compensation to the plaintiff according to the contract.
Recently, the People's Court of Hai 'an County, Jiangsu Province ruled in the first instance that an insurance company of the defendant compensated the plaintiff for compulsory insurance of 60,000 yuan, and commercial insurance (motor vehicle loss insurance, third party liability insurance, special insurance excluding odds) 105 129.86 yuan. (2008.5.27)
(ten) lost license plate is not declared, the accident responsibility.
On June 9th, 2007, a black car with license plate number Ji G40 109 collided with a motorcycle driven by plaintiff Guo Ze at the entrance of Xinhua Street, Xibagang Road, qiaoxi district, Zhangjiakou City, causing injuries to the plaintiff, and the car escaped after the accident. The traffic police detachment determined that the vehicle was fully responsible for the accident. Zhangjiakou City Public Security Traffic Police Detachment found out that the license plate number of Hebei G40 109 was actually red CZ2 12.
The fire command vehicle is owned by Hebei Yanxing Machinery Co., Ltd., but the vehicle has been parked in the warehouse for several years, and the owner claims that the license plate is lost.
After the trial, the court held that the license plate is one of the signs to prove the identity of the vehicle. According to the relevant traffic regulations, the license plate must be consistent with the vehicle configuration registered by the public security department. Defendant Hebei Yanxing Machinery Co., Ltd., as the owner of the license plate, has the obligation to manage the license plate and should declare it in time after it is lost. Because of its poor management, the vehicle number plate is used by the accident vehicle and runs on the road, and the accident vehicle escapes after a traffic accident, the owner of the vehicle number plate should bear the liability for compensation first.
A few days ago, the People's Court of qiaoxi district, Zhangjiakou City, Hebei Province made a first-instance judgment on this case. The defendant's car number plate owner compensated the plaintiff Guo Ze for medical expenses and lost time, totaling more than 90,000 yuan.
Further reading: How to buy insurance, which is good, and teach you how to avoid these "pits" of insurance.