May I ask was injured to ask the other side of the civil compensation for all costs to be based on the law of Article?

A, this case should be tort rather than emergency shelter.　Emergency shelter belongs to the concept of criminal law, "Criminal Law" Article 21 provides: In order to make the state, public **** interests, my or other people's person, property and other rights from the danger that is occurring, had no choice but to take the emergency shelter behavior, resulting in damages, not criminally liable. In China's civil law system also stipulates that the civil liability concerned can be exempted from liability in the case of emergency risk avoidance. However, these provisions are for the person who is being infringed by the danger to avoid the state, public **** interests, I or the legitimate rights and interests of others from the danger of infringement of the implementation of the infringement of the third party can not be held criminally and civilly liable. In this case, the aggrieved person is paymaster himself instead of the third person, and although paymaster's injury is caused by avoiding the danger that is occurring, but because paymaster did not cause damage to the third person, so the legal relationship in this case is based on the infringement of the driver of the two cars to produce the infringement of the driver, instead of paymaster's act of avoiding the danger.　Second, this case shall be *** same tort.　According to the supreme people's court "personal injury compensation interpretation" article 3: two or more *** with intent or *** with negligence caused damage or although no *** with intent, *** with negligence, but the infringement of the direct combination of the same damage occurs, constitutes *** with the infringement, should be in accordance with the general principles of civil law, article 130 of the joint and several liability; two or more people do not have *** with intent or *** The same negligence, but their respective implementation of several acts indirectly combined with the same damage occurred, should be based on the size of the fault or the proportion of the cause of each bear the corresponding liability. In this case the car driver and the motorcycle driver's respective fault behavior are not aimed at FuMou, and no conspiracy to harm FuMou meaning and contact, and if only one cause occurs, regardless of whether the car exercise or motorcycle exercise will not lead to FuMou's injuries, but the two negligent behavior in a specific time accidentally occurred contact, *** with the same contributed to FuMou's personal injury occurs. Therefore, the car driver and motorcycle driver constitute *** same tort.　Third, several issues in the trial of this case.　In the identity of the parties to confirm, if pay only one of the drivers as a defendant, then according to the personal injury compensation interpretation of article 5, the court should add the other driver as *** with the defendant.　And on the issue of confirmation of liability for damages, the author believes that: the behavior of the two drivers in this case is an indirect combination of the two drivers led to the injuries of Fu, rather than a direct combination. Because as long as one of the driver did not appear, then according to the situation, pay a person can avoid the vehicle and avoid their own injuries, but when the two drivers of their respective negligence combined to indirectly lead to pay a person's injuries. Therefore, the two drivers should be in accordance with the "personal injury compensation interpretation" of article 3, paragraph 2 of the provisions of "according to the size of the fault or the cause of the proportion of their respective liability." I add 2010-02-07 17:13 Pro because of trivial matters and others have a dispute, the son heard his mother beaten, not to persuade his parents to calmly deal with the conflict, the big deal, but indiscriminately teamed up with friends to help each other, the other party was injured and disabled. January 29, the People's Court of Zhenping County, Shaanxi Province, according to the law, sentenced the "filial son of the "Zhang Qiang (a pseudonym) committed the crime of intentional injury, sentenced to 1 year imprisonment, compensation for the costs of 56,000 yuan, at the same time, to help his two friends also bear the corresponding joint liability.　At about 9:00 p.m. on the evening of June 10, 2009, Yuan Feng (a pseudonym) and Li Xia (a pseudonym), the wife of Tan Junfeng (a pseudonym), quarreled over trivial matters, during which both sides abused each other and tore and scratched each other. Yuan Feng's son, Zhang Qiang, heard that his mother was being beaten, so he went with Fan Jun (a pseudonym) and Shao Hua (a pseudonym) to help, and when they entered Tan Junfeng's house, Zhang Qiang and Fan Jun went up to beat Tan Junfeng, and Shao Hua assisted the two men in controlling Tan Junfeng and preventing him from resisting. Zhang Qiang first used a wooden chair to hit Tan Junfeng's legs, and then beat his face with his fists. He was later pulled away and the police were called. Tan was injured by the public security organs of the police sent to the county hospital for treatment, after diagnosis of self-incriminating left internal ankle bone fracture, frontal scalp soft tissue contusion, dental trauma loosening. After identification, the conclusion is: the appraised Tan blunt force injury to traumatic loss of teeth, the degree of injury is a minor injury. A traumatic loss of teeth, two left inner ankle bone avulsion fracture, the degree of disability is nine.　The court heard that the defendant Zhang Qiang because of his mother was beaten and intentionally injure others, causing minor injuries, his behavior has constituted the crime of intentional injury, should bear criminal and civil liability according to law. In the implementation of the self-complainant aggression, the defendant Zhang Qiang, as well as the incidental civil lawsuit defendant Fan Jun, Shao Hua are involved, although there is no evidence to confirm that the three have a prior premeditation, but the three people have implemented the aggression, and caused the consequences of the damage. Among them, Zhang Qiang will be self-represented beaten and caused minor injuries, should be primarily liable for compensation, Fan Jun, Shao Hua in the side control of the victim to prevent him from resisting, should be held secondarily liable. According to the relevant provisions of the law, so the above judgment. Questioner's follow-up 2010-02-07 17:14 Can not be a little short, just say the case, give me 5 short legal cases My supplementary 2010-02-07 17:19 July 28, from Shaoyang City, Hunan Province, Pan Mou from the hands of the Guangxi Port District People's Court enforcement judge received 10,000 yuan of compensation, said excitedly: "I am hanging heart! Finally landed! I thought I was a foreigner to you to the lawsuit, you will have local protectionism, either let my lawsuit can not win, or long delay, it seems that I was wrong about you!"　Things have to start from a traffic accident. 2006 September 9, 17:00, the defendant ChenMou drunk driving two-wheeled motorcycle through the port area of sichuan road to the direction of dongxing avenue, when driving to sichuan road and dongxing avenue, when the bicycle will be riding a plaintiff PanMou knocked down, cause the plaintiff and defendant two people were injured and the two cars damaged in the traffic accident. By the traffic police department, chen mou bear full responsibility for the accident. Pan mou in the city people's hospital hospitalization for 22 days, *** spend more than 10,000 yuan medical expenses.　　Afterwards, the plaintiff repeatedly looking for compensation for the defendant to no avail, so in June 2007 to the court. The court ruled that the defendant should compensate the plaintiff 10,000 yuan. But the defendant did not according to the effective judgment of the compensation obligation, the plaintiff in June 2008 to apply for compulsory execution. The court accepted the case, the executive bureau actively contact with chenmou, after learning that the whole family went out to work, according to the law to chenmou announcement served notice of compulsory execution.　　On July 18, 2008, the case of Zhu Hai judge through the Chen Mou litigation agent to contact Chen Mou. On the phone, the host judge from the legal theory, humane aspects of the repeated ideological work of Chen. The host judge's sincerity and a high degree of responsibility for the parties y impressed Chen Mou outside to avoid debt, promised to return to Fangchenggang consciously fulfill the obligation to pay compensation. Case introduction: the applicant (plaintiff), zhejiang a shipping company (ship buyer) the respondent (defendant), a company in Canada (ship seller) the applicant and the respondent signed a "ship sale and purchase contract", agreed that the applicant to buy the respondent owns a ship, the applicant to pay a 10% deposit, pay the balance of the ship, the contract agreed to arbitrate in London. The contract provided for arbitration in London. The contract also stipulated that it was subject to the approval of the company's board of directors. The legal representative of the applicant signed the contract and affixed the company seal. The authorized person of the respondent signed the contract. Later, the applicant, Zhejiang Company, paid a 10% deposit, but the respondent refused to deliver the ship. At that time, the international shipping market was booming and the price of the ship was rising.　　The applicant thought that the respondent refused to deliver the ship after receiving the deposit, which was obviously a breach of contract, so it spent a lot of money to hire domestic and British barristers to represent it, and filed an application for arbitration in London, England, requesting the other party to deliver the ship and applying for the ship to be seized in Canada for half a year, which resulted in a huge amount of loss of shipping time. The case was heard by a European arbitrator.　　The arbitrator held that the contract stated that it had to be approved by the board of directors, and the applicant, Zhejiang Company, did not provide the documents approved by the board of directors, therefore, he considered that the contract was established but did not come into effect, and if it did not come into effect, there was no breach of contract, and the respondent's failure to hand over the ship did not constitute a breach of contract, therefore, he ruled that the applicant lost the case, and compensated for the huge losses incurred by the ship's detention. The applicant paid more than 8 million dollars in legal fees (foreign barristers) and arbitration fees for this case.　　The dispute in this case centered on whether the contract had come into effect. In the arbitration, the applicant hired a well-known Chinese company law expert to testify in court in the UK in an attempt to prove that the company's representative's signature and the company's seal were deemed to be the company's consent to the contract. However, the foreign arbitrator insisted that a separate document approving the content of the contract by the board of directors must also be provided. Summary of judgment/decision: The arbitration clause in the contract signed by the parties on the establishment of Wuhan Sikonda Biotechnology Co., Ltd. stipulated: "All disputes arising from the execution of this contract or relating to this contract shall be resolved by the two parties through goodwill negotiations. If the dispute cannot be resolved through consultation, it shall be submitted to the Beijing or Wuhan Arbitration Commission for settlement". Although the contract did not specify the name of the arbitration committee, only agreed that the arbitration institution is Beijing or Wuhan Arbitration Committee, but in view of Beijing or Wuhan are only one arbitration committee, that is, the Beijing Arbitration Committee or Wuhan Arbitration Committee, so the agreement was found to be clear, the arbitration clause is legally valid. Wuhan intermediate people's court of hubei province civil judgment (200*) wu jing re word no. ** the plaintiff in the original trial ***** science and technology development corporation, domicile in wuhan city, hubei province ** road **.　　Legal representative Wang **; manager of the company.　　Defendant of the trial ********** Limited; place of residence No. **, ** District, Beijing.　　Legal representative Li **. Chairman of the Board of Directors of the company.　　The Plaintiff and the Defendant had a dispute over the fulfillment of the Contract on the Establishment of Wuhan ********** Limited Liability Company signed by the two parties; the Defendant filed an application for arbitration to the Beijing Arbitration Commission in accordance with the Arbitration Clause in the Contract. The plaintiff in the trial on the ground that "the arbitration clause only agreed on the two arbitration places of Beijing or Wuhan, but the specific arbitration institution is not clear", the plaintiff requested the court to confirm that the arbitration agreement in the contract on the establishment of "wuhan ******* limited liability company" was invalid. Invalid. In December 2000, the court made (2000) wuzhong confirms the word No. 3 civil ruling, ruled that the parties signed the contract on the establishment of "wuhan Si ******* limited liability company" in the arbitration agreement is invalid. The defendant did not accept, in February 2001 to the court filed an application for re-examination. After examination; the application meets the legal requirements for re-examination.　　This court after re-examination, the parties signed on December 28, 1997 on the establishment of "wuhan ******* limited liability company" contract in the arbitration clause agreed that: "all due to the implementation of this contract or all disputes related to this contract, the two sides through the support of good consultation If the dispute cannot be resolved through consultation, it shall be submitted to the Beijing Office. If the dispute cannot be resolved through consultation, it shall be submitted to the Beijing or Wuhan Arbitration Commission for settlement". Although the contract did not specify the name of the arbitration committee, but only agreed that the arbitration institution was the Beijing or Wuhan Arbitration Committee, but in view of the fact that there was only one arbitration committee in Beijing or Wuhan, i.e., Beijing Arbitration Committee or Wuhan Arbitration Committee, the agreement was found to be clear, and the arbitration clause was lawful and valid. The ruling of the original trial found that the arbitration agreement was invalid in error. In accordance with the provisions of Article 140 of the Chinese People's *** and National Civil Procedure Law and Article 20 of the Chinese People's *** and National Arbitration Law, it is hereby ruled as follows: The civil ruling No. 3 of the Court (2000) is set aside; the arbitration agreement contained in the contract between the plaintiff of the first instance and the defendant of the first instance on the establishment of Wuhan ******* Co. The arbitration agreement in the contract is valid.　　The plaintiff shall bear the cost of 200 RMB for the case.　　This decision is final.