Li Zhifang Vs. the Traffic Police Sub-Branch of the Public Security Bureau of Longyan City, Fujian Province
(Case on Refusal to Accept the Decision on the Re-ascertainment of the Liability for Traffic Accident)@#
BASIC FACTS@#
Plaintiff: Li Zhifang, male, 30, driver of Tobacco Company of Liancheng County, Fujian Province, dwelling at Lianfeng Town, Liancheng City.@#
Authorized Agent: Wu Shengfa, legal worker of the Legal Service Center of Liancheng County, Fujian Province.@#
Defendant: the Traffic Police Sub-Branch of the Public Security Bureau of Longyan City, Fujian Province.@#
Legal Representative: Ye Jianjin, chief of the Sub-Branch.@#
Authorized Agents: Ye Qi and Chen Haiyan, policemen of the Traffic Police Sub-Branch of the Public Security Bureau of Longyan City.@#
The Third Person: Qiu Jialiu, male, 51, worker, dwelling at Lianfeng Town, Liancheng County.@#
The Third Person: Liu Lianhua, female, 42, town resident, wife of Qiu Jialiu, dwelling at the same location as mentioned above.@#
The Third Person: Qiu Bingqin, male, 41, peasant, dwelling at Jiele Town, Liancheng County.@#
The Third Person: Xie Xiaolin, female, 40, peasant, wife of Qiu Bingqin, dwelling at the same location as mentioned above.@#
The Third Person: Zhou Lihua, female, 19, town resident, dwelling at Lianfeng Town, Liancheng County.@#
The Third Person: Li Xia, female, adult, town resident, dwelling at the dormitory of the Comprehensive Plant under Liancheng County Commercial Bureau.@#
The Traffic Police Sub-Branch of the Public Security Bureau of Longyan City, Fujian Province (hereinafter referred to as “Longyan Traffic Police”), the defendant, made the No. 343 (2000) of the Written Decision on the Re-ascertainment of the Liability for the Road Traffic Accident on October 12, 2000, which ascertained: (1) Qiu Senbin (hereinafter referred to as “Qiu SB”) drove a vehicle without a license, carried passengers in violation of rules thus hampered driving, and occupied the other lane when driving; his act was one of the causes of the traffic accident, which violated Article 6, Article 25, Item (1) of Article 33 and Item (1) of Article 49 of the Regulations on Road Traffic Control; (2) Li Zhifang (hereinafter referred to as “Li ZF”) occupied the other lane when driving a vehicle not on the right, which was one of the causes of the traffic accident, and his act violated Article 6 and Item (1) of Article 49 of the Regulations on Road Traffic Control. Longyan Traffic Police decided to revoke the No. 20001033 of the Written Ascertainment of the Liability for the Road Traffic Accident, a liability ascertainment made by the Traffic Police Brigade of the Public Security Bureau of Liancheng County, Fujian Province (hereinafter referred to as “Liancheng Traffic Police”), and re-ascertained that Qiu SB and Li ZF should bear the equal liability for the accident. Li ZF, the plaintiff, refused to accept this decision and brought an administrative lawsuit at the People's Court of Liancheng County, Fujian Province (hereinafter referred to as “Liancheng Court”).@#
．．．．．．

李治芳不服交通事故责任重新认定决定案@#
@#
原告：李治芳，男，３０岁，福建省连城县烟草公司驾驶员，住连城县莲峰镇。@#
委托代理人：吴生发，福建省连城县法律服务中心法律工作者。@#
被告：福建省龙岩市公安局交通警察支队。@#
法定代表人：叶鉴金，该支队支队长。@#
委托代理人：叶圻、陈海岩，龙岩市公安局交通警察支队干警。@#
第三人：邱家流，男，５１岁，工人，住连城县莲峰镇。@#
第三人：刘莲华，女，４２岁，居民，系邱家流妻子，住址同上。@#
第三人：邱炳钦，男，４１岁，农民，住连城县揭乐乡。@#
第三人：谢小玲，女，４０岁，农民，系邱炳钦妻子，但址同上。@#
第三人：周丽华，女，１９岁，居民，住连城县莲峰镇。@#
第三人：李霞，女，成年，居民，住连城县商业局综合厂宿舍。@#
被告福建省龙岩市公安局交通警察支队（以下简称龙岩交警队）于２０００年１０月１２日作出（２０００）第３４３号《道路交通事故责任重新认定决定书》，认定：（１）邱森彬无证驾车，违章载人妨碍驾驶，占道行驶，是造成交通事故的原因之一，其行为违反了《道路交通管理条例》第六条、第二十五条、第三十三条（一）项、第四十九条（一）项的规定；（２）李治芳驾车占道行驶，未遵守右侧通行的原则，是造成交通事故的原因之一，其行为违反了《道路交通管理条例》第六条、第四十九条（一）项的规定。决定撤销福建省连城县交通警察大队（以下简称连城交警队）第２０００１０３３号《道路交通事故责任认定书》的责任认定，重新认定邱森彬和李治芳负本事故的同等责任。原告李治芳不服该决定，向福建省连城县人民法院提起行政诉讼。@#
原告诉称：被告的重新认定决定书，以原告占道行驶为由推翻连城交警队的责任认定，是错误的。认定原告占道行驶，没有事实根据。请求依法撤销被告的责任重新认定决定书，并判决被告重新作出责任认定。@#
被告辩称：此次重大交通事故的发生有两个原因。原告李治芳的责任是：第一、《道路交通事故现场勘查图》和现场照片反映，李治芳采取紧急制动留在道路上的制动拖印，是从道路中心线左侧０．５ｍ呈斜线状往右侧滑行，证明李治芳在发现危险前占据对方道路行驶。由于李治芳未遵守右侧通行的原则驾车占道行驶，才使邱森彬在会车时对李治芳的行车动态判断失误，造成事故的发生。第二、现场勘查图表明，肇事路段宽直，视线良好，很早就可以发现对方来车的动态。李治芳留下的制动压印长３．６ｍ、拖印长１５．１ｍ可以判断，李治芳发现险情时距离对向来车应在３０ｍ以上。这个距离内，只要驾驶员反映及时、处置有效，是可以避免事故发生的。但由于李治芳车速过快，驾车时疏忽大意，以致发现险情后采取紧急避险的措施不当。当然，对方邱森彬无证驾驶摩托车，后载三人，妨碍操作，交会车时占道行驶，也是造成交通事故的原因。综上所述，被告的责任认定事实清楚，证据确实，适用法律正确，程序合法，人民法院应当维持被告作出的责任重新认定决定书。@#
．．．．．．