>>>welcome 河南大学, You have logged in.
Logout History Contact us  
Font Size:  A A A Search “Fabao” Window English 中文 = 简体  繁体
  Favorite   DownLoad   Print
 
Liu Youxiang v. Luoyang Section of Luoyang Railway Sub-Bureau and Chenzhou Section of Changsha Railway Corp. (A case about disputes over compensation for death in railway passenger transportation)
刘有祥诉洛阳铁路分局洛阳列车段、长沙铁路总公司郴州车务段铁路旅客运输人身伤亡赔偿纠纷案
【法宝引证码】

Liu Youxiang v. Luoyang Section of Luoyang Railway Sub-Bureau and Chenzhou Section of Changsha Railway Corp. (A case about disputes over compensation for death in railway passenger transportation)
(A case about disputes over compensation for death in railway passenger transportation)
刘有祥诉洛阳铁路分局洛阳列车段、长沙铁路总公司郴州车务段铁路旅客运输人身伤亡赔偿纠纷案

Liu Youxiang v. Luoyang Section of Luoyang Railway Sub-Bureau and Chenzhou Section of Changsha Railway Corp.
(A case about disputes over compensation for death in railway passenger transportation)

 

刘有祥诉洛阳铁路分局洛阳列车段、长沙铁路总公司郴州车务段铁路旅客运输人身伤亡赔偿纠纷案

BASIC FACTS 
Plaintiff: Liu Youxiang, male, 66, farmer of Luoning county, Henan Province. 原告:刘有祥,男,66岁,河南省洛宁县农民。
Attorney: Liu Xianmin, son of the plaintiff. 委托代理人:刘现民,原告之子。
Attorney: Lü Jianguo, lawyer of Tianpai Law Firm of Hengyang, Hunan Province. 委托代理人:吕建国,湖南省衡阳市天牌律师事务所律师。
Defendant: Luoyang Section of Luoyang Railway Sub-Bureau 被告:洛阳铁路分局洛阳列车段。
Representative: Shang Yamin, section director. 代表人:尚亚民,段长。
Attorney: Ma Jianguo and Wu Zhengquan, officers of Luoyang Railway Sub-Bureau. 委托代理人:马建国、吴政权,洛阳铁路分局干部。
Defendant: Chenzhou Section of Changsha Railway Corp. 被告:长沙铁路总公司郴州车务段。
Representative: Chen Anmin, section director. 代表人:陈安民,段长。
Attorney: Fan Jiamo, officer of the Passenger and Goods Transportation Division, Chenzhou Section of Changsha Railway Corp. 委托代理人:范家模,长沙铁路总公司郴州车务段客货运输室干部。
PROCEDURAL POSTURE 
In respect of disputes over the compensation for death in railway passenger transportation with the defendants, Luoyang Section of Luoyang Railway Sub-Bureau (the “Luoyang Section”) and Chenzhou Section of Changsha Railway Corp. (the “Chenzhou section”), the plaintiff, Liu Youxiang, instituted an action in the Railway Transportation Court of Hengyang, Changsha. 原告刘有祥因与被告洛阳铁路分局洛阳列车段(以下简称洛阳列车段)、长沙铁路总公司郴州车务段(以下简称郴州车务段)发生铁路旅客运输人身伤亡赔偿纠纷,向长沙铁路衡阳运输法院提起诉讼。
The plaintiff, Liu Youxiang, alleged that: his son, Liu Fengmin, died while taking the passenger Train No.522 en route, and the two defendants could not present any valid proof on the cause of death until then. The relatives of the deceased once requested the autopsy, but had to concede to cremate the body for Chenzhou Section's refusal to the autopsy. The two defendants should be liable for the death of Liu Fengmin. The plaintiff requested the court to order the two defendants to pay 20,000 yuan of insurance amount, 40,000 yuan of compensation and 7,000 yuan of funeral expenses. 原告诉称:原告之子刘丰民在乘坐522次旅客列车途中突然死亡,二被告至今不能拿出死亡原因的有效证明。家属要求法医鉴定,遭被告郴州车务段拒绝,不得已同意火化。二被告对刘丰民的死亡负有责任。请求法院判令二被告给付保险金2万元、赔偿金4万元和丧事处理费7000元。
The defendant, Luoyang Section argued that: after the plaintiff's son, Liu Fengming, jumped off the train and died, Luoyang Section had performed its duties in line with the railway rules. Because Liu Fengmin died for his own reasons, Luoyang Section should not be liable in any way according to law. The other defendant, Chenzhou Section argued that: Chenzhou Section was the entity handling the casualty accidents of passengers, specifically responsible for the accident investigation, division of liabilities and disposal with full powers of an uncontested accident. The police delivered the body of Liu Fengmin to Chenzhou Section after the on-site investigation, and at delivery did not require autopsy or made other requirements. Hence, Chenzhou Section disposed of this accident according to the common procedures for the disposal of casualty accidents of passengers. As to the autopsy requested by the relatives of the deceased, Chenzhou Section replied to them that the autopsy should be subject to the decision of the police after a request. Since then, Chenzhou Section had not received any notice on autopsy from the police or other authorities. Chenzhou Section and the relatives of the deceased reached a consensus on the posthumous matters, and signed an Agreement on the Investigation and Disposal of Passenger Casualty Accident. The body was cremated with the consent of the relatives of the deceased, and the whole procedures were completely in conformity with the provisions of the Ministry of Railway. On the basis of the materials delivered by the Train No.522 to Chenzhou Section, Liu Fengmin died for his own reasons, outside the scope of railway compensation, so the railway transportation enterprise should not be liable for compensation. 被告洛阳列车段辩称:原告之子刘丰民跳车身亡后,我段已经按照铁路规定履行了自己的职责。刘丰民死亡是其自身原因造成的,我段依法不承担任何责任。被告郴州车务段辩称:我段是旅客意外伤害事故的处理单位,职责是调查事故、划分责任和在无异议的情况下全权处理。刘丰民的尸体是公安人员经现场勘查后移交给我段的,移交时公安部门没有提出尸检或者其他要求,我段即按照一般旅客意外伤害事故的处理程序进行处理。对死者家属提出的尸检要求,我段已答复其要向公安部门请求,由公安部门决定。此后我段一直未接到公安部门或者其他部门的尸检通知。我段与死者家属就善后问题达成一致意见,并签订了《旅客意外伤亡事故处理协议书》。尸体是在死者家属同意的情况下火化的,整个处理程序完全符合铁道部的规定。根据522次列车移交给我段的材料,刘丰民的死亡是其自身原因造成的,不属于铁路赔偿的范畴,故铁路运输企业不承担赔偿责任。
At trial, the Railway Transportation Court of Hengyang, Changsha found out: 长沙铁路衡阳运输法院经审理查明:
On March 7, 1998, Liu Fengmin, son of Liu Youxiang, and Yang Baosheng, his brother-in-law, took the passenger Train No.522 (from Luoyang to Guangzhou) at Luoyang Station to go to Guangzhou for work, and sat on the No.90 and No.91 seats of the No.7 carriage. According to Yang Baosheng, Liu Fengmin went to the dinner car, while he fell into sleep sitting on his seat, and when the train arrived at Guangzhou Station in the evening of March 8, he could not find Liu Fengmin. According to the train workers, some people notified them that a passenger was seen jumping off the train while the train was running between Chenzhou and Baishidu on the Jingguang Line, and they took the statements of two eyewitnesses who called themselves Li Guizhi and Wang Jiankui and looked for his company through broadcasting, but received no response. When the train returned to Chenzhou on March 9, the train conductor, police and security guard also got off the train and went to Chenzhen Section to inquire of Tan Shuyun in charge of the security of this section about whether a passenger jumped off the train the day before, and Tan replied no. Then, the three persons went back to Luoyang. 1998年3月7日,原告刘有祥之子刘丰民与其妹夫杨保生从洛阳站乘坐522次(洛阳至广州)旅客列车去广州打工,坐在7号车厢90、91号座位。据杨保生讲,期间刘丰民去餐车就餐,他在座位上睡觉,8日晚列车到达广州站时,他找不到刘丰民。列车工作人员称,当列车运行到京广线郴州至白石渡区间时,有人向他们反映发现一名旅客跳车,他们遂向自称李桂枝、王建奎的两位目击者取证,并广播寻找跳车者的同行人,但没有结果。3月9日列车返回郴州时,列车长、乘警及安全员还下车到郴州车务段,向该段负责安全的谭树云询问昨天是否有旅客跳车,谭称未发现。三人即返回洛阳。
At 7:40 a.m., March 10, Baishidu Police Station notified Baishidu Station over telephone that a male body was found at the 1,944.8 km of Jingguang Line. Cao Shunguang, deputy director of Baishidu Station, and Chen Jianhua of the police station reached the site at 9 a.m. that day, examined and took pictures of the body, found two tickets for the Train No.522, 50 yuan, a phone book and other personal effects on the body, delivered the body and things left by the deceased to Tan Shuyun of Chenzhou Section for the disposal of posthumous matters and notified Luoyang Section over telephone in the afternoon that day, and notified the relatives of the deceased according to the numbers on the phone book in the morning the next day. On March 13, the plaintiff, Liu Youxiang, and other two relatives arrived at Chenzhou Section, identified the deceased as Liu Fengmin and requested the autopsy. Tan Shuyun told them that Chenzhou Section could not and had no right to conduct the examination. On March 20, the body of Liu Fengmin was cremated, and Chenzhou Section advanced 1,600 yuan of funeral expenses. On March 31, on the basis of the statements of Li Guizhi and Wang Jiankui that someone was seen jumping off the train as delivered from the Train No.522, Tan Shuyun, representative of the Accident Disposal Committee of Chenzhou Section, signed an Agreement on the Investigation and Disposal of Passenger Casualty Accident with Liu Xianmin, brother of the deceased, on the posthumous matters, on the ground that Liu Fengmin died for his own reasons, and paid a lump sum of 3,500 yuan of insurance amount to Liu Youxiang. Once back home, Liu Youxiang looked for the witnesses according to the names and addresses of witnesses provided by Chenzhou Section, and it turned out that the address of one witness was false, and the name of the other was false. Considering that Liu Fengmin did not die from jumping off the train and the two defendants should be liable for his death, Liu Youxiang instituted an action in the court. 3月10日7时40分,白石渡公安所电话通知白石渡车站,在京广线1944.8公里处发现一具男尸。白石渡车站副站长曹顺光与公安所的陈建华于当日9时到现场,对尸体进行了检验及照相,并在死者身上查到522次车票2张、人民币50元、电话号码本一本等物品,当日下午将尸体和遗物移交给被告郴州车务段的谭树云处理善后事宜,并电话通知了被告洛阳列车段,次日上午又按电话号码本的记载通知了死者亲属。原告刘有祥等3名亲属于13日到郴州车务段,确认了死者是刘丰民后,要求进行法医鉴定。谭树云称车务段不能也无权做此鉴定。3月20日,刘丰民尸体火化,郴州车务段垫付丧事处理费1600元。3月21日,彬州车务段事故处理委员会的代表谭树云根据522次列车移交的李桂枝、王建奎二人关于发现有人跳车的证明,以刘丰民的死亡是其自身原因造成的为由,与死者之兄刘现民就善后问题签订了《旅客意外伤害事故调查处理协议书》,向刘有祥发放了一次性保险金3500元。刘有祥回家后,根据郴州车务段提供的证人姓名及地址去查找证人,结果一个是无此地址,一个是无此人名。刘有祥认为刘丰民并非死于跳车,二被告对刘丰民的死亡负有责任,遂向法院提起诉讼。
The above facts were sufficiently evidenced by the ticket of the deceased, passenger transportation records, passenger casualty records, proof on the non-existence of Li Guizhi produced by the Villagers' Committee of Yangzhuang village, Yangzhuang town, Baofeng county, Henan Province, proof on the non-existence of both the Wangtang village and Wang Jiankui produced by Ruzhou town, Ruzhou city, Henan Province, and open trial records. 上述事实,有死者刘丰民的车票、客运记录、旅客伤亡事故记录,河南省宝丰县杨庄镇杨庄村村委会证实该村没有李桂枝其人、河南省汝州市汝州镇证实该镇没有王堂村也没有王建奎其人的证明,以及开庭审理笔录等证据证实,足资认定。
In the opinion of the Railway Transportation Court of Hengyang, Changsha: 长沙铁路衡阳运输法院认为:
Article 58(1) of the Railway Law of the People's Republic of China provides that: “A railway transportation enterprise shall be liable for compensation for any personal casualty due to a railway traffic accident or any other railway operational accident; and shall not be liable for compensation for any personal casualty due to a force majeure or the victim's own reasons.” The evidence adduced by Liu Youxiang showed that: according to the addresses and names provided by the witnesses, he could not find the witnesses concerned. The defendant, Luoyang Section determined that Liu Fengmin died from “jumping off the train” on the basis of the statements of witnesses, Li Guizhi and Wang Jiankui. Since the identities of the two witnesses were unclear, such evidence should be of no legal effect and inadmissible. Based on the information currently known, the argument that Liu Fengmin died from “jumping off the train” was unfounded, and it could be only inferred that he died from falling off the train. When failing to effectively prove that Liu Fengmin died for his own reasons, Luoyang Section should be liable for compensation according to the provision of Article 58(1) of the Railway Law. According to the provisions of Article 5快醒醒开学了 of the Rules on the Compensation for Damage in Railway Passenger Transportation (“Compensation Rules”) issued by the Ministry of Railway as approved by the State Council Letter No.81 [1994] on August 13, 1994 and Article 18 of the Measures for the Disposal of Railway Passenger Casualty or Carried Luggage Loss Accident, a railway transportation enterprise should pay 40,000 yuan of compensation as per the upper railway liability limit to Liu Youxiang. Article 6 of the Compensation Rules also provides that: “The compensation shall be made by a railway transportation enterprise according to these Rules, without prejudice to the passenger obtaining the insurance amount according to the state provisions on mandatory insurance for railway passenger casualty accidents.” So, while requesting the compensation, Liu Youxiang should be entitled to the insurance amount. Article 5 of the Regulation on the Mandatory Insurance for Railway Passenger Casualty Accidents as amended on June 5, 1992 provides that: “The insurance amount for a passenger shall be uniformly 20,000 yuan per capita, without regard to the grade of seat, full price ticket, half price ticket or free ticket.” Article 8(a) provides that: “For a death, the entire insurance amount shall be paid.” So, pursuant to this provision, Luoyang Section should also pay 20,000 yuan of insurance amount to Liu Youxiang. 中华人民共和国铁路法》第五十八条第一款规定:“因铁路行车事故及其他铁路运营事故造成人身伤亡的,铁路运输企业应当承担赔偿责任;如果人身伤亡是因不可抗力或者由于受害人自身的原因造成的,铁路运输企业不承担赔偿责任。”原告刘有祥提供的证据表明,根据证人自述的住址和姓名,查找不到相符的人。被告洛阳列车段是根据证人李桂枝、王建奎的证明,认定刘丰民“自己跳车”死亡。由于这两个证人来历不明,该证据不具有法律效力,不予采信。根据目前所掌握的情况,刘丰民“自己跳车”死亡一说不能成立,只能推定其坠车死亡。洛阳列车段在不能有效证实刘丰民是自身原因死亡的情况下,应当依照铁路法五十八条第一款的规定,承担赔偿责任。依照1994年8月13日国务院以国函(1994)81号文批准铁路部发布的《铁路旅客运输损害赔偿规定》(以下简称赔偿规定)第五条和《铁路旅客人身伤害及携带行李损失事故处理办法》第十八条法宝的规定,铁路运输企业应当按铁路承担赔偿责任的最高限额人民币4万元给付刘有祥。赔偿规定第六条还规定:“铁路运输企业依照本规定给付赔偿金,不影响旅客按照国家有关铁路旅客意外伤害强制保险规定获取保险金。”因此,刘有祥在请求赔偿的同时,还有权请求给付保险金。1992年6月5日修改的《铁路旅客意外伤害强制保险条例》第五条规定:“旅客之保险金额,不论座席等次、全票、半票、免票,一律规定为每人人民币两万元。”第八条(甲)项规定:“死亡者,给付保险金额全数。”洛阳列车段还应当照此规定给付刘有祥保险金两万元。
Article 14 of the Measures for the Disposal of Railway Passenger Casualty or Carried Luggage Loss Accident, No.52 [1995] of the Ministry of Railway, issued by the Ministry of Railway provides that: “For a passenger casualty accident, an Accident Disposal Committee shall be formed. The Accident Disposal Committee shall be made up of the accident disposal station (railway section), accident-related railway section, railway police station, and passenger or his or her relatives or agents (but no more than two), with the director of the disposal station (railway section) as the chairman. When necessary, the director of the railway sub-bureau shall serve as the chairman.” After Liu Fengmin died, Chenzhou Section, in violation of the provision above, formed an accident disposal committee without the police member and signed an Agreement on the Investigation and Disposal of Passenger Casualty Accident with the relatives of the deceased, which should be ineffective. Chenzhou Section should be liable for the improper disposal of the accident. 铁道部以铁运(1995)52号文发布的《铁路旅客人身伤害及携带行李损失事故处理办法》第十四条规定:“发生旅客伤害事故,应成立事故处理委员会。事故处理委员会由事故处理站(车务段)、事故有关段、车站公安派出所和旅客或家属、代理人(不超2人)组成,处理站(车务段)的站长(段长)为主任委员。必要时,分局长为主任委员。”刘丰民死亡后,被告郴州车务段违反上述规定,在没有公安机关派员参加的情况下,就组成事故处理委员会并与死者亲属签定了《旅客意外伤害事故调查处理协议书》,所签协议应属无效。应当承担对事故处理不当的责任。
Article 4(iii) of the Measures for Handling the Mandatory Insurance for Railway Passenger Casualty Accidents provides that: “Where the funeral services are handled by the railway, the amount of funeral expenses shall be fully deducted from the insurance amount paid by the insurance company or its agent to the passenger.” The body of Liu Fengmin was cremated by Chenzhou Section with the consent of his relatives, and the claim of the plaintiff, Liu Youxiang, that the two defendants should pay 7,000 yuan of funeral expenses should not be supported. 《铁路旅客意外伤害强制保险办理手段》第四条第(三)项规定:“旅客由铁路代为棺殓埋葬者,其费用由保险公司或其代理机构在给付该旅客保险金额内如数扣除。”刘丰民的尸体是在征得其家属同意后,由郴州车务段代为火化的,原告刘有祥要求二被告赔偿丧事处理费7000元,不予支持。
Accordingly, on July 24, 1998, the Railway Transportation Court of Hengyang, Changsha, ruled that: 据此,长沙铁路衡阳运输法院于1998年7月24日判决:
1. The defendant, Luoyang Section, should pay 34,900 yuan of compensation and 20,000 yuan of insurance amount to Liu Youxiang.   一、被告洛阳列车段给付原告刘有祥赔偿金人民币3.49万元,保险金人民币2万元。
2. The defendant, Chenzhou Section should pay 5,100 yuan of compensation to Liu Youxiang.   二、被告郴州车务段给原告刘有祥赔偿人民币5100元。
Of the court costs of 2,520 yuan for this case, Luoyang Section should bear 2,305 yuan and Chenzhou Section should bear 215 yuan. 本案诉讼费人民币2520元,由被告洛阳列车段负担2305元,被告郴州车务段负担215元。
The total amount of compensations, insurance amount and court costs should be 62,520 yuan, from which 3,500 yuan of insurance amount and 1,600 yuan of advance funeral expenses already paid by Chenzhou Section should be deducted, and the rest should be fully paid within 10 days as of the effective date of this judgment. 以上一、二项及诉讼费共计人民币62520元,扣除郴州车务段已支付给原告的保险金3500元和垫付的丧事处理费1600元,余款在判决发生法律效力之日起10日内付清。
BASIC FACTS 
The defendant, Luoyang Section appealed this judgment of the first instance to the Intermediate Railway Transportation Court of Guangzhou on the grounds that: (a) Luoyang Section should not be the defendant in this case pursuant to the railway passenger transportation rules, and the case should be filed against the accident disposal station. (b) It was improper for the original trial court to decide that Liu Fengmin did not die for his own reasons, only because the identities of the two witnesses could not be ascertained; the train did not violate the railway rules, the train workers had disposed of the accident properly, and Luoyang Section should not be liable for compensation; and the amount of compensation made by Luoyang Section should be decided by the Accident Disposal Committee, not by the court. (c) The insurance amount should be paid by the accident disposal station, not by Luoyang Section. Therefore, Luoyang Section requested revocation of the judgment of the first instance. 被告洛阳列车段不服第一审判决,向广州铁路运输中级法院提起上诉。理由是:1、依照铁路客运规章我段不应是本案被告,应由事故处理站应诉。2、原审法院仅从无法判明两位证人的身份,就认定刘丰民死亡不是自身原因造成欠妥;列车没有违反铁路规定,当时列车工作人员处理是适当的,我段不应承担赔偿责任;我段承担多少赔偿金,应当由事故处理委员会确定,不能由法院确定。3、保险金应当由事故处理站付给,不应由我段支付。因此,请求撤销原审判决。
The appellee, Liu Youxiang, argued that: the judgment of the original trial court was correct, and should be upheld. 被上诉人刘有祥答辩称,原审法院判决正确,应当维持。
After trial, in the opinion of the Intermediate Railway Transportation Court of Guangzhou: 广州铁路运输中级法院经审理认为:
Liu Fengmin, son of the plaintiff Liu Youxiang, died while taking the Train No.522 en route. Because the appellant, Luoyang Section, was both an entity liable for this railway passenger death accident and the defendant named in the plaintiff's complaint, it was not improper for the court of the first instance to call it as a defendant in this case. The appeal ground of Luoyang Section that it should not be the defendant in this case was unfounded. 原告刘有祥之子刘丰民是在乘坐522次列车途中死亡。上诉人洛阳列车段既是此次铁路旅客死亡事故的责任单位,也是原告起诉状中的被诉主体,一审将其列为本案被告,并无不妥。洛阳列车段称其不应作为本案被告的上诉理由,不能成立。
According to Article 58 of the Railway Law, the appellant, Luoyang Section, as the direct carrier, if it disagrees with the claims of Liu Youxiang, must bear the burden of proof. Luoyang Section adduced proofs from two passengers and train workers in the Train No.522, but these proofs should be of no legal effect, since the identities of the two passengers could not be ascertained and the train workers were the interested parties. Luoyang Section could not provide the effective proof on the argument that Liu Fengmin died for his own reasons, and should be liable for compensation according to law. It was correct for the original trial court to determine the proofs from the two passengers as having no legal effect, and the appeal ground of Luoyang Section that the original trial court's determination was improper was unfounded. 依照铁路法五十八条的规定,上诉人洛阳列车段作为直接承运单位,如果不同意刘有祥的主张,必须承担举证责任。该段虽然提交了两名旅客和522次列车工作人员的证明材料,但是由于两名旅客的身份无法确认,列车工作人员是利害关系人,因此这些证明不具有法律效力。洛阳列车段不能提交刘丰民系自身原因死亡的有效证明,依法应当承担赔偿责任。原审法院据此认定两位旅客的证明不具有法律效力,是正确的,洛阳列车段认为原审法院的认定不妥,其理由不能成立。
The disputes in this case entered the judicial proceedings upon the plaintiff's instituting this action, and this action fell under the court jurisdiction and should be heard by the court according to law. The appeal ground of the appellant, Luoyang Section, that the disputes that had entered the judicial proceedings should be subject to the internal railway rules on the disposal of accidents and settled by the Accident Disposal Committee should not be adopted. 本案纠纷自原告起诉后,已经进入司法程序,经审查属法院主管,应由法院依法审理。上诉人洛阳列车段对进入诉讼程序的纠纷,认为应当适用铁路内部关于对事故处理的办法,由事故调查处理委员会来裁决的上诉理由,不能采纳。
According to Article 3(v) of the Rules on the Specific Work of Railway after Taking over the Mandatory Insurance for Railway Passenger Casualty Accidents issued by the Ministry of Railway, for the death of a passenger, usually, the insurance amount should be paid by the station near the accident site. After Liu Fengmin died, the insurance amount should be paid by the accident disposal station, i.e. the appellee, Chenzhou Section, and it was improper for the original trial court to rule that the appellant, Luoyang Section, should pay the insurance amount. This appeal ground of Luoyang Section was well-founded, and should be supported. 按照铁道部发布的《关于铁路接办铁路旅客意外伤害强制保险后各项具体工作的规定》第三条第五项,旅客死亡的,保险金原则上由出事地点附近之车站付给。刘丰民死亡后,保险金应当由事故处理站段即被上诉人郴州车务段支付,原审判决由上诉人洛阳列车段支付不妥。洛阳列车段的此项上述理由有理,应予支持。
The Accident Disposal Committee formed by the appellee, Chenzhou Section, in violation of Article 14 of the Measures for the Disposal of Railway Passenger Casualty or Carried Luggage Loss Accident, entered into an Agreement on the Investigation and Disposal of Passenger Casualty Accident with the appellee, Liu Youxiang, in the absence of the police member, which only showed the improper disposal of the accident by Chenzhou Section. However, Chenzhou Section was not liable for the death of Liu Fengmin from falling off the train, so it was improper for the original trial court to rule that Chenzhou Section should assume part of the compensation for its improper disposal of the accident, which should be redressed. 被上诉人郴州车务段组成的事故调查处理委员会,违反《铁路旅客人身伤害及携带行李损失事故处理办法》第十四条的规定,在公安机关没有派员参加的情况下,就与被上诉人刘有祥签订《旅客意外伤害事故调查处理协议书》,只能说明郴州车务段对事故处理不当,但郴州车务段对于刘丰民坠车死亡一事并无责任,原审以对事故处理不当判令其分担部分赔偿责任欠妥,应当纠正。
JUDGMENT 
In short, among the appeal grounds of the appellant, Luoyang Section, except the ground that Chenzhou Section should pay the insurance amount, the other grounds should not be adopted. The original judgment was clear in fact-finding, sufficient and hard in evidence, but flawed in application of law. On October 26, 1998, in accordance with Article 153(1)(i) of the Civil Procedural Law of the People's Republic of China, the Intermediate Railway Transportation Court of Guangzhou ruled that: 综上,上诉人洛阳列车段的上诉理由中,除应由郴州车务段支付保险金的理由有理,其余均不予采纳。原审判决事实清楚,证据确实、充分,但适用法律有不当之处。广州铁路运输中级法院依照民事诉讼法第一百五十三第一款第一项的规定,于1998年10月26日判决:
1. Item 1 of the judgment of the first instance should be changed to: Luoyang Section, the appellant, should pay 40,000 yuan of compensation to Liu Youxiang, the appellee.   一、变更一审判决的第一项为:上诉人洛阳列车段给付被上诉人刘有祥赔偿金人民币4万元。
2. Item 2 of the judgment of the first instance should be changed to: Chenzhou Section, the appellee, should pay 20,000 yuan of insurance amount to Liu Youxiang, the appellee (from which 3,500 yuan of insurance amount and 1,600 yuan of advance funeral expenses already paid should be deducted). Of the court costs of 2,520 yuan for the first instance, Luoyang Section should bear 2,016 yuan and Chenzhou Section should bear 504 yuan; and of the court costs of 2,520 yuan for the second instance, Luoyang Section should bear 2,016 yuan and Chenzhou Section should bear 504 yuan.

   二、变更一审判决的第二项为:被上诉人郴州车务段给付被上诉人刘有祥保险金人民币2万元(原已支付的保险金3500元及垫付的丧事处理费1600元予以折抵)。本案一审案件受理费2520元,由洛阳列车段负担2016元,郴州车务段负担504元;二审案件受理费2520元,由洛阳列车段负担2016元,郴州车务段负担504元。
 

     
     
Scan QR Code and Read on Mobile
【法宝引证码】        北大法宝en.pkulaw.cn
Message: Please kindly comment on the present translation.
 
Confirmation Code:
Click image to reset code
 
  Translations are by lawinfochina.com, and we retain exclusive copyright over content found on our website except for content we publish as authorized by respective copyright owners or content that is publicly available from government sources.

Due to differences in language, legal systems, and culture, English translations of Chinese law are for reference purposes only. Please use the official Chinese-language versions as the final authority. Lawinfochina.com and its staff will not be directly or indirectly liable for use of materials found on this website.

We welcome your comments and suggestions, which assist us in continuing to improve the quality of our materials as we dynamically expand content.
 
Home | About us | Disclaimer | Chinese