Home > English > Judicial Cases > Full Text
Hits Focused   English 中文
Copy Full Text Download Favorite Operation
  • Format:
  • View:

No.2 of Four Model Cases Published by the Supreme People's Court: Wu Jundong and Wu Xiuzhi v. Hu Qiming and Dai Congqiu (case of dispute over compensation for personal injury in a traffic accident)

最高法发布四起侵权纠纷典型案例:***、***与***、***交通事故人身损害赔偿纠纷案

尊敬的用户,您好!本篇仅为该案例的英文摘要。北大法宝提供单独的翻译服务,如需整篇翻译,请发邮件至info@chinalawinfo.com,或致电86 (10) 8268-9699进行咨询。

Dear user, this document contains only a summary of the respective judicial case. To request a full-text translation as an additional service, please contact us at: + 86 (10) 8268-9699 info@chinalawinfo.com

  • [Key Terms] standard of proof of high degree of probability; weight of proof; determination of traffic accident liability
  • [核心术语] 高度盖然性的证明标准;证明力;交通事故责任认定
  • [Disputed Issues] Where the traffic administrative department fails to determine the causes and liability in respect of a traffic accident, could the court determine the traffic accident liability by the standard of proof of high degree of probability?
  • [争议焦点] 交通管理部门对交通事故成因及责任无法认定的情况下,法院能否依据高度盖然性的证明标准确定事故责任?
  • [Case Summary] The standard of proof of high degree of probability applies the recognition means of preponderance of probability to civil trial in the judicial area, under which, if the evidence is not sufficient and reliable enough to prove the facts to be proved, and if the evidence produced by one party has proved that the facts are of a high degree of probability, the Supreme People's Court may ascertain the facts. Generally, the letter of responsibility for traffic accident issued by the traffic administrative department is the main basis for determining the liability for a traffic accident. However, if the traffic administrative department fails to determine the causes and liability in respect of a traffic accident, other evidence of high weight of proof may be considered in a comprehensive manner to improve trial efficiency, and if the facts proved by such other evidence are of a high degree of probability, the people's court may come to conclusion based thereon. Therefore, the court may determine the liability for a traffic accident in accordance with the standard of proof of high degree of probability when the traffic administrative department fails to determine the causes and liability in respect of the traffic accident.
  • [案例要旨] 高度盖然性的证明标准,是将盖然性占优势的认识手段运用于司法领域的民事审判中,在证据对待证事实的证明无法达到确实充分的情况下,如果一方当事人提出的证据已经证明该事实发生具有高度的盖然性,人民法院即可对该事实予以确定。通常情况下,交通管理部门做出的交通事故责任认定书是确定交通事故责任的主要依据,但如果交通管理部门对交通事故成因及责任无法认定,从提高审判效率的目的出发,可以综合考虑其他证明力较高的证据,如果其他证据所证明的事实发生具有高度的盖然性,人民法院也可以借此得出结论。因此,交通管理部门对交通事故成因及责任无法认定的情况下,法院可以依据高度盖然性的证明标准确定事故责任。
  • No.2 of Four Model Cases Published by the Supreme People's Court: Wu Jundong and Wu Xiuzhi v. Hu Qiming and Dai Congqiu (Case of Dispute over Personal Injury Compensation in a Traffic Accident)
  • 最高法发布四起侵权纠纷典型案例:***、***与***、***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,***驾驶***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***驾驶的无号牌电动自行车(搭载其妻***)发生交通事故。电动自行车失控侧翻致***及***二人受伤,随后***送二人至医院治疗。双方就***是否谨慎驾驶及其所驾摩托车与***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,***车辆靠道路右侧行驶,距道路右边半米左右,***车辆距离道路右边一米多远,两车横向距离为40—50厘米。***超车时为五档,迎面有一黑色轿车快速驶来,***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;***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%.
  • 浙江金华中院二审认为,***驾驶三轮摩托车超越***电动自行车时,其车速较快;结合***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***超车过程中***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***的电动自行车翻车与***驾三轮摩托车超车中疏忽大意存在因果关系,***应承担事故的主要责任;***驾驶电动自行车搭载成年人违反道路安全法亦有过错,双方按三七比例承担***等的医疗费、伤残赔偿金、误工费等人身损害赔偿责任。
  • III. Significance
  • 三、典型意义
  • Legal facts were different from objective facts and the standard of proof in civil litigations was also different from that in criminal litigations. Civil litigations in China adopted the standard of high probability. The significance of this case lay in that, according to the standard of proof of high probability and in light of the circumstances where Wu Jundong failed to notice the coming vehicle when his vehicle overtook another vehicle, the overtaking speed was fast (in the fifth speed gear), and the horizontal distance between the vehicle of Wu Jundong and that of Hu Qiming was short (only about 40 to 50 cm), the court determined that there was causation between the sway and turnover of the electric motorcycle driven by Hu Qiming in the overtaking and the overtaking of Wu Jundong. In this case, the scope of duty of care of drivers in overtaking was rationally defined and it was of guiding significance in terms of the standard of proof and fact determination.
  • 法律事实不同于客观事实,民事诉讼的证明标准也不同于刑事诉讼证明标准。我国民事诉讼采取的是高度盖然性标准。本案的典型意义在于,法院根据高度盖然性证明标准,结合***超车前未注意到前方驶来的车辆,超车时车速较快(五档),与***车辆横向距离较短(仅为40-50厘米),从而认定超车过程中***的电动自行车发生左右晃动而侧翻与***的超车行为之间具有因果关系。本案合理界定了超车时驾驶人的注意义务范围,在证明标准及事实认定方面具有指导意义。
© Pkulaw (www.pkulaw.com) provides various professional solutions in such fields as legal information, law knowledge and legal software. Pkulaw provides you with abundant reference materials. When you invoke articles of laws and regulations, please check them with the standard texts.
You are welcome to view all our products and services. Pkulaw Express:How to quickly find information you need? What are the new features of Pkulaw V6?

Scan QR Code and Read on Mobile

智能检索

Welcome to V6

We will provide better legal search services for you

Back to V5 Still in V6

Expiration Reminder

Your partial permission to access Pkulaw.com expired on May 31, 2022.Upon expiry your account can still be used, but some access will be limited.

You can renew your subscription now by clicking the button below.Pkulaw.com welcomes you to participate in our Mid-Year Lucky Draw to win up to 10,000-yuan gift when you buy 3,600 yuan or more.

Ok Renew

Expiration Reminder

Your partial permission to access Pkulaw.com expires on May 31, 2022. Upon expiry your account can still be used, but some access will be limited.

You can renew your subscription now by clicking the button below. Pkulaw.com welcomes you to participate in our Mid-Year Lucky Draw to win up to 10,000-yuan gift when you buy 3,600 yuan or more.

Ok Renew