>>>welcome visitor, haven't logged in. Login
Subscribe Now Contact us  
Font Size:  A A A Search “Fabao” Window English 中文 = 简体  繁体
  Favorite   DownLoad   Print
 
Zheng Kebao v. Xu Weiliang and Changxing Sub-branch Company of PICC Property and Casualty Company Limited (A case about disputes over compensation for personal injuries in a road traffic accident)
郑克宝诉徐伟良、中国人民财产保险股份有限公司长兴支公司道路交通事故人身损害赔偿纠纷案
【法宝引证码】
  • Type of Dispute: Civil-->Tort ★
  • Legal document: Judgment
  • Judgment date: 09-18-2006
  • Procedural status: Trial at Second Instance
  • Source: SPC Gazette,Issue 7,2008

Zheng Kebao v. Xu Weiliang and Changxing Sub-branch Company of PICC Property and Casualty Company Limited (A case about disputes over compensation for personal injuries in a road traffic accident)
(A case about disputes over compensation for personal injuries in a road traffic accident)
郑克宝诉徐伟良、中国人民财产保险股份有限公司长兴支公司道路交通事故人身损害赔偿纠纷案

Zheng Kebao v. Xu Weiliang and Changxing Sub-branch Company of PICC Property and Casualty Company Limited
(A case about disputes over compensation for personal injuries in a road traffic accident)

 

郑克宝诉徐伟良、中国人民财产保险股份有限公司长兴支公司道路交通事故人身损害赔偿纠纷案

 【裁判摘要】
 一、根据机动车辆保险合同的约定,机动车辆第三者责任险中的“第三者”,是指除投保人、被保险人和保险人以外的,因保险车辆发生意外事故遭受人身伤亡或财产损失的保险车辆下的受害者;车上人员责任险中的“车上人员”,是指发生意外事故时身处保险车辆之上的人员。据此,判断因保险车辆发生意外事故而受害的人属于“第三者”还是属于“车上人员”,必须以该人在事故发生当时这一特定的时间是否身处保险车辆之上为依据,在车上即为“车上人员”,在车下即为“第三者”。
 二、由于机动车辆是一种交通工具,任何人都不可能永久地置身于机动车辆之上,故机动车辆保险合同中所涉及的“第三者”和“车上人员”均为在特定时空条件下的临时性身份,即“第三者”与“车上人员”均不是永久的、固定不变的身份,二者可以因特定时空条件的变化而转化。因保险车辆发生意外事故而受害的人,如果在事故发生前是保险车辆的车上人员,事故发生时已经置身于保险车辆之下,则属于“第三者”。至于何种原因导致该人员在事故发生时置身于保险车辆之下,不影响其“第三者”的身份。
BASIC FACTS 
Plaintiff: Zheng Kebao, male, 24, farmer, residing in Qiucun Town, Guangde County, Anhui Province. 原告:郑克宝,男,24岁,农民,住安徽省广德县邱村镇。
Defendant: Xu Weiliang, Male, 45, individual businessman, residing in Heping Town, Changxing County, Zhejiang Province. 被告:徐伟良,男,45岁,个体工商户,住浙江省长兴县和平镇。
Defendant: Changxing Sub-branch Company of PICC Property and Casualty Company Limited, residing at: South Jinling Road, Zhicheng Town, Changxing County, Zhejiang Province. 被告:中国人民财产保险股份有限公司长兴支公司,住所地:浙江省长兴县雉城镇金陵南路。
Authorized Representative: Zhu Xinming, Manager of the Sub-branch Company. 代表人:朱新明,该支公司经理。
Zheng Kebao, the plaintiff, instituted an action in the People's Court of Changxing County, Zhejiang Province against Xu Weiliang and Changxing Sub-branch Company of PICC Property and Casualty Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as “Changxing Sub-branch”), the defendants, for disputes over compensation for personal injuries in a road traffic accident. 原告郑克宝因与被告徐伟良、中国人民财产保险股份有限公司长兴支公司(以下简称财保长兴支公司)发生道路交通事故人身损害赔偿纠纷,向浙江省长兴县人民法院提起诉讼。
Zheng Kebao, the plaintiff, alleged that: At 2: 58 on June 12, 2005, the plaintiff was taking a coach (plate number: Zhe-EB1662) running eastwards on National Highway 312. When passing by the east end of Weiting Flyover of National Highway 312, the vehicle went out of control due to improper operations of the car by driver Yang Jianping, as a result of which the plaintiff sitting in the vehicle was ejected out of the vehicle and gravely injured by the rollover of the vehicle. After investigation on the scene, the Industrial Park Squad of the Traffic Patrol Division of the Public Security Bureau of Suzhou City (hereinafter referred to as the Traffic Patrol Industrial Park Squad) determined that Yang Jianping should assume the entire liability for the accident and the plaintiff was not liable for the accident. After the accident, the plaintiff was rushed to the First Affiliated Hospital of Suzhou University, where the plaintiff stayed for 63 days, and the plaintiff sustained medical expenses of 64,991.05 yuan and transportation expenses of 1,677 yuan. As identified by the competent authority, the plaintiff had suffered one Grade V disability, one Grade VIII disability and three Grade X disabilities. The large vehicle (plate number: Zhe-EB1662) involved in this case was owned by Xu Weiliang, a defendant, who had purchased a third party liability insurance for the vehicle with an insured amount of 500,000 yuan (limit of liability) from Changxing Sub-branch, the other defendant. The traffic accident involved in this case occurred during the term of validity of the said insurance contract. Therefore, as the owner of the vehicle causing the accident, Xu Weiliang should be liable for compensation to the plaintiff, and Changxing Sub-branch should be liable for compensation within the limit of liability of the “third party liability insurance” under the insurance contract signed by it with Xu Weiliang. In addition to the aforesaid medical expenses and transportation expenses, the two defendants should also compensate the plaintiff for lost wages of 8,608 yuan, nursing fees of 3,988 yuan, hospitalization meal subsidies of 945 yuan, disability compensation of 121,928 yuan and disability assisting instrument costs of 440,737.5 yuan. In summary of the above, the plaintiff requested the court to order Xu Weiliang and Changxing Sub-branch to compensate the plaintiff for damages in a total amount of 642,874.55 yuan (which should be paid by Changxing Sub-branch within the limit of liability of the third party liability insurance under the insurance contract, and the deficit should be made up by Xu Weiliang), and Xu Weiliang should also compensate the plaintiff for mental distress in an amount of 30,000 yuan. 原告郑克宝诉称:2005年6月12日2时58分,原告乘坐车牌号为浙EBl662的汽车沿312国道由西向东行驶。行至312国道唯亭立交桥东堍处时,由于驾驶该车的司机杨建平操作不当,车辆失控,致使原本乘坐在车内的原告跌出车外,并被该车碾压致重伤。经苏州市公安局交通巡逻警察支队工业园区大队(以下简称交警工业园区大队)勘察,认定杨建平负事故全部责任,原告不负事故责任。事故发生后,原告被送往苏州大学附属第一医院治疗,住院 63天,发生医疗费64 991.05元、交通费 1677元。经鉴定,原告的伤情构成五级伤残一处,八级伤残一处,十级伤残三处。涉案浙EBl662大型汽车属被告徐伟良所有,徐伟良于2005年1月1日为该车向被告财保长兴支公司投保第三者责任险,保险金额(责任限额)为500 000元,涉案交通事故发生在该保险合同有效期内。因此,徐伟良作为事故车辆的所有人应对原告承担赔偿责任,财保长兴支公司应当依照其与徐伟良签订的保险合同在“第三者责任险”的责任限额内承担赔付责任。除上述医疗费、交通费以外,两被告还需要赔偿原告误工费8608元、护理费3988元、住院伙食补助费945元、伤残赔偿金121 928元、残疾辅助器具费440 737.50元。综上,请求法院依法判令徐伟良与财保长兴支公司赔偿原告各项损失合计642 874.55元(由财保长兴支公司在保险合同约定的第三者责任险责任限额内赔偿,超出部分由徐伟良负担),并由徐伟良赔偿原告精神损害抚慰金 30000元。
...... 原告郑克宝提交以下证据:
 1.原告郑克宝的户口簿复印件及户籍证明一份,用以证明原告的身份;
 2.涉案交通事故现场照片22张,交警工业园区大队交通事故认定书、交通事故伤残评定书各一份,用以证明交通管理部门认定涉案浙EB1662汽车司机杨建平负事故全部责任,原告郑克宝不负事故责任,原告的伤情构成五级伤残一处,八级伤残一处,十级伤残三处;
 3.苏州大学附属第一医院门诊病历、出院记录、住院费用清单、疾病鉴定诊断证明及医疗费、交通费收据,用以证明原告郑克宝因涉案交通事故受伤后在苏州大学附属第一医院住院治疗,发生医疗费用64 990.91元,交通费用1677元;
 4.上海科生假肢有限公司出具的证明一份,内容是:建议原告郑克宝安装上臂三自由度肌电假肢,价格为36 500元,使用期限为三至五年,每年维修费为售价的5%至8%。用以证明原告还需要安装假肢,购买、安装及维修费用共计440 737.50元;
 5.中国人民财产保险股份有限公司机动车辆保险单(正本)一份,用以证明被告徐伟良为涉案浙EB1662汽车向被告财保长兴支公司投保了“第三者责任险”,保险金额(责任限额)为500 000元,且不计算免赔额。同时还投保了“车上人员责任险”,保险金额(责任限额)为每座50 000元,共投保3座。
 被告徐伟良辩称:本人对涉案交通事故的发生及责任认定均无异议,但本人已为涉案肇事机动车向被告财保长兴支公司投保了第三者责任险,涉案交通事故发生在保险合同的有效期内,故应由财保长兴支公司在保险金额500 000元的范围内承担赔偿责任。本人对原告郑克宝诉讼请求中主张的残疾辅助器具的安装及维修费用有异议,原告主张的假肢安装及维修费用过高,应参照普通适用型辅助器具的安装、维修费用予以计算。此外,涉案交通事故系由驾驶员杨建平违规操作造成,交通管理部门也认定由杨建平负事故全部责任,故原告要求本人承担精神损害抚慰金30000元的诉讼请求没有法律依据。综上,请求驳回原告对本人的全部诉讼请求。
 被告徐伟良提交苏州大学附属第一医院住院病案的相关材料,用以证明原告郑克宝的损害结果发生在涉案浙EB1662汽车车外,原告被该车碾压致左上肢、脾、肝等多处受伤,属于第三者责任险的赔偿范围。
 被告财保长兴支公司辩称:涉案交通事故是单方事故,原告郑克宝系肇事车辆浙EB1662车上的乘客,事故发生时,原告尚在车上,发生事故后才将原告甩下车,故对于原告的损失应按照车上人员责任险的限额进行理赔。被告徐伟良为涉案肇事车辆向本公司投保了车上人员责任险,保险金额为每座50000元,故按照保险合同的约定,本公司只在50 000元的限额内赔偿原告,不同意按照第三者责任险的责任限额承担责任。
 被告财保长兴支公司提交以下证据:
 1.交警工业园区大队事故认定书一份,用以证明涉案交通事故是司机杨建平在驾驶中采取措施不当,致车辆失控,将原告郑克宝甩下车所造成的单方事故;
 2.中国人民财产保险股份有限公司机动车辆第三者责任保险条款一份,用以证明按照合同的约定,被告财保长兴支公司只应当按照车上人员责任险的责任限额对涉案交通事故给予理赔。
 长兴县人民法院依法组织了质证。被告徐伟良对原告郑克宝提交的证据1、2、 3、5没有异议,对证据4有异议,认为该证据所反映的原告用于假肢安装及维修的费用过高,应参照普通适用型的辅助器具计算相关费用。徐伟良对被告财保长兴支公司提交的证据1、2的真实性没有异议,但认为上述证据不能证明财保长兴支公司的观点。财保长兴支公司同意徐伟良对原告提交的证据4的质证意见,对原告提交的证据1、2、3、5的真实性没有异议,但认为上述证据与财保长兴支公司在本案中应负责任无关。该公司对徐伟良提交的证据有异议,认为涉案交通事故是单方事故,原告属于“车上人员”而非“第三者”。 原告对徐伟良提交的证据没有异议,对财保长兴支公司提交的证据1、2的真实性没有异议,但认为上述证据不能证明财保长兴支公司的观点。长兴县人民法院审查后认定:原告提供的证据1、2、3、5,徐伟良提供的证据,被告财保长兴支公司提供的证据1、 2,均符合证据的真实性、合法性和关联性,予以认定;原告提供的证据4系上海科生假肢有限公司对原告安装假肢所提供的建议,该建议中向原告推荐的上臂三自由度肌电假肢的报价及其维修费用均高于同类产品。法院经咨询残疾辅助器具配制机构,结合原告的年龄、损伤程度、活动量等实际情况,从既有利于恢复原告的生活自理能力和从事简单的生产劳动能力,又不额外加重两被告责任的角度综合考量,确定原告可安装浙江省残疾人现代假肢矫形器装配中心的上臂肌电假肢,该假肢价格为 26 500元,平均使用寿命为3-5年,维修费用为装配价的4%,装配、维修该假肢的费用共需153 700元。
 ......

Dear visitor, you are attempting to view a subscription-based section of lawinfochina.com. If you are already a subscriber, please login to enjoy access to our databases. If you are not a subscriber, you can pay for a document through Online Pay and read it immediately after payment.
An entity user can apply for a trial account or contact us for your purchase.
Tel: +86 (10) 82689699, +86 (10) 82668266 ext. 153
Mobile: +86 13311570712
Fax: +86 (10) 82668268
E-mail: database@chinalawinfo.com

 
您好:您现在要进入的是北大法律英文网会员专区。
如您是我们英文用户可直接 登录,进入会员专区查询您所需要的信息;如您还不是我们 的英文用户;您可通过网上支付进行单篇购买,支付成功后即可立即查看本篇内容;
单位用户可申请试用或者来电咨询购买。
Tel: +86 (10) 82689699, +86 (10) 82668266 ext. 153
Mobile: +86 13311570712
Fax: +86 (10) 82668268
E-mail:database@chinalawinfo.com
     
     
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