|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | |
Four Model Cases Published by the Supreme People's Court | | 最高人民法院发布的四起典型案例 |
(July 25, 2014) | | (2014年7月25日) |
Case No. 1 | | 案例1 |
Case of Compensation for Personal Injury by Chen | | 陈某某人身损害赔偿案 |
I. Basic Facts | | 一、基本案情 |
Du (88 years old) and Chen (a primary school student) were villagers of the same village. On January 4, 2009, Chen knocked Du down to the ground on the street near their residences. Du was sent to hospital for treatment and was diagnosed by the doctor as (1) atrial fibrillation and (2) comminuted intertrochanteirc fracture of the right femur, which took the medical expenses of 2,121.85 yuan. Half a year later, Du was diagnosed as fracture of the right lower extremity with concurrent infection in a health clinic. On August 17 of the same year, Du passed away. Relatives of Du required that Chen and his legal representative should pay 94,145 yuan for various losses including the compensation for death. Chen contended that: On the way to school, Chen found that Du was lying in a ditch and he voluntarily intended to lift her up. Chen did not knock down Du at all and his act was entirely “helping others.” After a hearing, the court found that: On January 8, 2009, Chen Guohua, grandfather of defendant Chen, issued a note to plaintiffs for safekeeping. It was specified in the note that “Upon consultation with XX, we decided to settle this incident privately without calling the police and I would bear the consequences thereof. January 8, 2009 Chen Guohua.” On January 10, 2009, plaintiffs Chen Sunquan, Chen Sunsheng, and Chen Donghui (sons of Du) issued a receipt to Chen Guohua for safekeeping. It was specified in the receipt that “We hereby received 1,500 yuan in cash from Chen Guohua, the secondary guardian [for the fracture of Du caused by his grandson's knockdown]. (The former receipt has been burnt by (Chen) Guohua and this receipt would prevail.) Payees: Chen Sunquan, Chen Donghui, Chen Sunsheng, January 10, 2009.” | | 杜某某(88岁)与陈某某(小学学生)系同村村民,2009年1月4日在双方住房附近的街道上,陈某某将杜某某撞倒在地。杜某某被送住院治疗,经医生诊断为:1.心房纤颤;2.右股骨粗隆间粉碎性骨折。花费医疗费人民币2121.85元。半年后,卫生所再次诊断为右下肢骨折,合伴感染。同年8月17日,杜某某去世。杜某某亲属要求陈某某及其法定代理人赔偿包括死亡赔偿金在内的各项损失94145元。陈某某一方辩称,陈某某是要去上学时发现杜某某躺在水沟里,主动上前要把她扶起来,根本没有撞倒杜某某,其行为完全是助人为乐。法院审理查明,2009年1月8日,被告陈某某的祖父陈国华出具一张便条交原告收执,该便条载明:“经征求××意见,不报警私了,一切由我自负。2009年1月8日 陈国华”。2009年1月10日,原告陈孙权、陈孙胜、陈东辉(即杜某某之子)出具一张收据交陈国华收执,该收据载明:“今收到第二监护人陈国华现金壹仟伍佰元正,[因其孙撞倒杜某某造成骨折。(前收据已由国华烧掉,以本据为准)]。 收款人:陈孙权 陈东辉 陈孙胜 二○○九年一月十日 ”。 |
II. Judgment | | 二、裁判结果 |
After a hearing, the People's Court of Tong'an District, Xiamen City, Fujian Province held that: As an elder relative of Chen, Chen Guohua appeared on the scene on the day of the incident. According to the analysis on the note of “settling the incident privately” as issued by Chen Guohua and the content of the “receipt” he provided, it might be determined that Chen Guohua has acknowledged the fact that Chen knocked down Du. Although Chen Guohua claimed that the note did not reflect his true intention, he failed to submit any evidence to prove that the note was written by him for being cheated or under threat. In light of the fact that he has paid 1,500 yuan, it made clear that he consented to assume the compensation liability. In terms of the causation between the death of Du and the fall and injury thereof, the fall and fracture of Du were not the only reason for her death. In light of the actual circumstances of this case, the court determined that the fall and injury of Du accounted for 20% of causative potency in her death. Chen had a fault in Du's fall and injury, but the children of Du also had a fault for their failure to perform guardianship duties, which resulted in the fall of Du in the laneway. Therefore, plaintiffs should assume corresponding liabilities. In view of the above, the court determined upon its discretion that defendant Chen and plaintiffs should each assume 50% of liabilities. In light of the causative potency proportion of Du's fall and injury in her death, the court determined that the losses of Du for her medical treatment amounted to 13,321.85 yuan and the losses caused by her death amounted to 59,925 yuan. The court entered a judgment and ordered that the defendant should pay (13,321.85 yuan + 59,925 yuan × 20%) × 50% = 12,655.43 yuan for the economic losses caused by Du's injury and death. | | 福建省厦门市同安区人民法院审理认为,陈国华作为陈某某的长辈,在事发当日即到现场,从其出具的“私了”便条和其提供的“收据”内容分析,可以认定陈国华确认了陈某某撞倒杜某某的事实。虽然陈国华主张该便条并非其真实意思表示,但并未提供证据证明其系受到欺骗或威胁而写下,结合其已支付1500元的事实也表明其同意承担赔偿责任。就死亡后果与此次摔伤间的因果关系看,杜某某摔倒骨折并非导致其死亡的唯一原因,结合本案实际,本院确定杜某某的摔伤在其死亡结果中占有20%的原因力。陈某某对杜某某的摔伤结果存在过错,但杜某某的子女未尽好监护义务导致其在巷道里摔倒同样存在过错,故原告应承担相应的责任。本院因此酌定被告陈某某与原告各承担50%的责任。结合杜某某摔伤与其死亡结果的原因力比例,法院确定,杜某某因伤就医的损失为13321.85元,死亡造成的损失59925元。判决被告方承担杜某某受伤、死亡造成经济损失为(13321.85元+59925×20%)×50%=12655.43元。 |
III. Significance | | 三、典型意义 |
In this case, both parities sticked to their own arguments on the fact whether the tortfeasor has committed a tort. Under this circumstance, the documentary evidence submitted by the plaintiffs in which the defendant admitted the tortious act in the process of handling this incident became crucial to the determination of facts. Where the defendant failed to produce evidence to rebut the documentary evidence involved, the court determined the fact of defendant's tortious act according to the documentary evidence, which complied with Article 72 of Some Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Evidence in Civil Procedures, and this was the significance of this case. Besides, in terms of assumption of compensation liabilities, the court differentiated and confirmed the causative potency between the tortious act and the death of the victim of the tort, and finally divided compensation liabilities in a reasonable manner, which was also of reference significance. | | 本案中,双方对侵权人是否实施侵权行为的事实各执一词,在此情况下,原告方提出的被告方在处理此事的过程中承认侵权行为的书面证据,就成为认定事实的关键。本案的典型意义在于,在被告方不能提供证据反驳案涉书面证据的情况下,法院根据书面证据认定被告的侵权事实,符合《最高人民法院关于民事诉讼证据的若干规定》第72条的规定。此外,在赔偿责任的负担上,法院对于侵权行为与被侵权人死亡结果之间原因力的区分和确认,以及对最终赔偿责任的合理划分,亦有借鉴意义。 |
Case No. 2 | | 案例2 |
Wu Jundong and Wu Xiuzhi v. Hu Qiming and Dai Congqiu for Dispute over Personal Injury Compensation in a Traffic Accident | | 吴俊东、吴秀芝与胡启明、戴聪球交通事故人身损害赔偿纠纷案 |
I. Basic Facts | | 一、基本案情 |
On November 23, 2010, a traffic accident occurred when Wu Jundong overtook an electric bicycle without a plate driven by Hu Qiming (carrying his wife Dai Congqiu thereon) on the mixed driveway for motor vehicles and non-motor vehicles in the full width of six meters by driving a right three-wheeled motorcycle (Lu DK0103) owned by Wu Xiuzhi. The electric bicycle got out of control and turned to its side, which caused injuries of both Hu Qiming and Dai Congqiu. Afterwards, Wu Jundong sent them to hospital for treatment. Both parties sticked to each other's arguments on whether Wu Jundong drove with caution and whether the motor vehicle driven by him was scraped and collided with the electric bicycle driven by Hu Qiming. The traffic administration failed to determine the accident causes and liabilities. In the process of overtaking, the vehicle driven by Hu Qiming was driving on the right side of the road, about half a meter away from the right roadside, the vehicle driven by Wu Jundong was driving about one meter away from the right roadside, and the horizontal distance between the two vehicles was about 40 to 50 cm. The motorcycle driven by Wu Jundong was in the fifth gear when it overtook the electric bicycle. There was a black car fast coming head-on and Wu Jundong said he felt a little dangerous. The road on the scene was flat and besides the black car, there was no other vehicle when the accident occurred. Both vehicles involved in the accident conformed to the technical standards for safety; and Wu Xiuzhi did not purchase the compulsory traffic accident liability insurance for the vehicle. | | 2010年11月23日,吴俊东驾驶吴秀芝的鲁DK0103普通正三轮摩托车在全宽6米的机非混合车道超车时,与胡启明驾驶的无号牌电动自行车(搭载其妻戴聪球)发生交通事故。电动自行车失控侧翻致胡启明及戴聪球二人受伤,随后吴俊东送二人至医院治疗。双方就吴俊东是否谨慎驾驶及其所驾摩托车与胡启明所驾电动自行车是否发生刮擦及碰撞,各执一词。交管部门对事故成因及责任无法认定。超车过程中,胡启明车辆靠道路右侧行驶,距道路右边半米左右,吴俊东车辆距离道路右边一米多远,两车横向距离为40-50厘米。吴俊东超车时为五档,迎面有一黑色轿车快速驶来,吴俊东称感觉有点危险。事发现场道路平坦,事发时除黑色轿车外无其他车辆经过。事故车辆经检验均符合安全技术标准;吴秀芝的车辆未投保交强险。 |
II. Judgment | | 二、裁判结果 |
After the second-instance hearing, the Intermediate People's Court of Jinhua City, Zhejiang Province held that: When Wu Jundong overtook the electric bicycle driven by Hu Qiming by driving the three-wheeled motorcycle, the speed of the motorcycle was fast; considering that Wu Jundong failed to notice the fast-coming black car from the opposite direction in the overtaking, it might be determined that he failed to perform the obligation of driving with caution. The accident liability certification issued by the traffic administration failed to prove whether the two vehicles were collided or scraped with each other. It could be seen from the testimonies of witnesses that the electric bicycle driven by Hu Qiming swayed and turned to its side when the motorcycle driven by Wu Jundong overtook it. In light of other circumstances on the accident scene and according to the judicial principle of high probability in the Civil Procedure Law, the trial court held that there was causation between the turnover of Hu Qiming's electric bicycle and the negligence of Wu Jundong when the three-wheeled motorcycle driven by him overtook the electric bicycle, and Wu Jundong should assume primary liabilities for the accident; Hu Qiming also had a fault in carrying an adult on an electric bicycle in violation of the Road Traffic Safety Law, and both parities should assume the compensation liabilities for personal injuries of Hu Qiming and other person, including medical expenses, disability compensation, and charges for loss of working hours, in the proportions of 30% and 70%. ...... | | 浙江省金华市中级人民法院二审认为,吴俊东驾驶三轮摩托车超越胡启明驾驶的电动自行车时,其车速较快;结合吴俊东超车前未注意到对向快速驶来的黑色轿车看,可以认定其未尽谨慎驾驶的注意义务。交管部门的事故责任证明虽未能证实两车是否发生碰撞或刮擦,但从证人证言反映的情况看,正是在吴俊东超车过程中胡启明的电动自行车发生左右晃动而侧翻,结合事故现场的其他情况,根据民事诉讼法高度盖然性的司法原则,审理法院认为胡启明的电动自行车翻车与吴俊东驾驶三轮摩托车超车中疏忽大意存在因果关系,吴俊东应承担事故的主要责任;胡启明驾驶电动自行车搭载成年人违反道路交通安全法亦有过错,双方按三七比例承担胡启明等的医疗费、伤残赔偿金、误工费等人身损害赔偿责任。 ...... |
| Dear visitor, as a premium member of this database, you will get complete access to all content.Please go premium and get more.
1. To become a premium member, please call 400-810-8266 Ext. 171.
2. Binding to the account with access to this database.
3. Apply for a trial account.
4. To get instant access to a document, you can Pay Amount 【¥600.00】 for your single purchase. | | 您好:您现在要进入的是北大法宝英文库会员专区。 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。 Tel: +86 (10) 82689699, +86 (10) 82668266 ext. 153 Mobile: +86 13311570713 Fax: +86 (10) 82668268 E-mail:info@chinalawinfo.com |
| | | | | |
|
Scan QR Code and Read on Mobile
|
|
|
Message: Please kindly comment on the present translation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|