In practice, unilateral traffic accidents are often encountered, and drivers and passengers are thrown out of the car and injured. Whether the injured person is a third person is controversial, and local courts have different judgments. The third party is supported in the following three situations, and the traffic accident of the vehicle and the third party should be compensated. This question is controversial and not a standard answer. Article 1 of the summary of the symposium on civil trial work of Hubei Higher People's Court and the scope of "third party" in compulsory motor vehicle third party liability insurance shall be determined in strict accordance with the provisions of Article 2 1 of the Regulations of the State Council on Compulsory Motor Vehicle Traffic Accident Liability Insurance. In the event of a traffic accident of the insured motor vehicle, it is not appropriate to identify the victim as compulsory motor vehicle third-party liability insurance because of subversion, inclination and other motor vehicle reasons.
Case 1
Due to a traffic accident, Liu, who was sitting in the passenger seat, was thrown out of the car and died. After the accident, the owner Li applied to the property insurance company for compensation, but the insurance company refused to pay the death compensation on the grounds that the victim Liu was a "car owner". So is it a "third party" if the person in the car is thrown out of the car and killed?
Case playback
20 10 on may 3rd, Li was driving a bus and had a traffic accident in Etuokeqian Banner, Inner Mongolia. Liu, who was sitting in the passenger seat at that time, was thrown out of the car and hit by an overturned vehicle. He died after being rescued. The local traffic police department determined that Li was fully responsible for the accident and Liu was not responsible. After mediation by the court, Li compensated Liu's close relative 1375 10 yuan. Because the car was insured with compulsory motor vehicle traffic accident liability insurance in a property insurance company, Li applied for compensation from the property insurance company after the insurance accident. Unexpectedly, the insurance company refused to pay death compensation on the grounds that the victim Liu was a "car driver". In a rage, Li sued the insurance company to the xingqing district People's Court.
During the trial of the case, the original and the defendant had a heated debate on whether Liu was a "ship's personnel" or a "third person" for compensation. The insurance company believes that Liu was in the car at the time of the accident and belonged to the personnel on the car, so the third party liability insurance cannot be applied to pay compensation. Li believes that after the accident, Liu was thrown out by the vehicle and then crushed to death by the vehicle, which should belong to the "third party".
The judge's statement
The "third party" in motor vehicle third party liability insurance refers to the victim under the insured vehicle who suffers personal injury or property loss due to the accident of the insured vehicle except the insured, the insured and the insurer. Although Liu was a "person in the car" before the crime, this identity is not static. With the change of specific time and space, this identity will also change. In the event of an accident, if the person on board is thrown out of the car without contact with the vehicle, which directly causes casualties, it shall be recognized as "the person on board"; When the person in the car leaves the bearing space of the vehicle, and is dragged, hit or crushed by the vehicle, causing casualties, it shall be recognized as a "third person".
The insurance company called Liu "the man in the car" and there was no evidence that he died when he was thrown out of the car. According to Article 76 of the Road Traffic Safety Law of the People's Republic of China, an insurance company shall be liable for compensation within the limit of compulsory insurance. In the end, the two sides reached a mediation agreement, and the insurance company agreed to pay death compensation to the insured Li, which has been fulfilled recently.
Case 2
Is the injured victim who was thrown out of the car in a traffic accident the "owner" or the "third party" relative to the car he was riding?
Question prompt
In the case of personal injury compensation in traffic accidents, the passengers on the bus were thrown out of the car and injured because of the collision between two cars. Compared with the car he was riding, does the injured person belong to "his own car" or "a third party"? Can I get compensation for the compulsory insurance of my car?
main points
Article 3 of the Regulations on Compulsory Liability Insurance for Motor Vehicle Traffic Accidents stipulates: "The compulsory liability insurance for motor vehicle traffic accidents mentioned in these Regulations refers to the compulsory liability insurance in which the insurance company compensates the victims other than the insured and the people on board for personal injury and property losses within the limits of liability." According to the above regulations, the motor vehicle "on board" involved in the accident does not belong to a third party, that is, the insurance company that underwrites compulsory vehicle insurance does not bear the liability for compensation.
Since the establishment of the compulsory insurance system, there is no corresponding law, regulation or judicial interpretation to clarify the transformation between "the person on board" and "the third person", and many courts have encountered similar difficult cases. The judgment of the second instance of this case analyzes the facts of this case from the viewpoint that the damage suffered by "people on board" is excluded from the scope of compensation in the Regulations on Compulsory Liability Insurance for Motor Vehicle Traffic Accidents. It is considered that the victim He Moumou was still in the car at the time of the traffic accident, and was thrown out of the car by external force after the accident, which could not change his identity as a "person in the car", so it does not conform to the scope of traffic accident compensation. The views of the first instance and the second instance of this case respectively represent two typical views on similar issues, which are of reference significance for solving similar cases.
Case index
First instance: Guangzhou Panyu District People's Court (2009) No.3571(2009165438+1October 9).
Second instance: Guangzhou Intermediate People's Court (20 10) Sui Famin Zhong Yizhino. 20 16 (20 10 1 1.8).
The facts of a legal case
Plaintiff (Appellee): He Moumou.
Defendants (Appellees): Song Moumou, Guangzhou Panyu Transportation Co., Ltd., Li Moumou, Li Moujia, China Ping An Property Insurance Co., Ltd. Foshan Branch (hereinafter referred to as "Ping An Insurance") Qin Moumou.
Defendant (appellant): Yu Moumou, a branch of China United Property Insurance Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "China United Insurance").
At 5 o'clock on July 1 1 2009, the taxi ace **0 driven by Song collided with the truck xa0**0 driven by Li, and He was thrown out of the car, causing two cars to be damaged and He was injured. The traffic police brigade issued the "Traffic Accident Confirmation", which determined that Song was fully responsible for the accident, Li was fully responsible for the accident, and He did not bear the full responsibility for the accident. After the above-mentioned traffic accident confirmation was made, Song refused to accept it and put forward a review. The results of the review maintained the confirmation of the traffic accident certificate.
On the day of the traffic accident, He Moumou was sent to Panyu District People's Hospital in Guangzhou for rescue. The First Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University issued the Notice of Critical Illness twice, claiming that He was in critical condition due to severe craniocerebral injury, primary brain stem injury and scalp laceration.
The accident vehicle Guangdong xa0**0 truck was insured with compulsory insurance in Ping An Insurance. The accident vehicle, Guangdong ace**0 vehicle, is insured by China United Insurance.
The registered owner of Guangdong ace**0 car is a transportation company in Panyu, Guangzhou. According to the property provided by the company, the ownership and management right of the taxi belongs to Li Moujia, and a transportation company in Panyu, Guangzhou manages and assists Li Moujia's vehicle operation as a nominal business entity. Li Moujia signed a lease contract with Qin and Yu Moumou on June 2, 2008, and Li Moujia leased the car to Qin and Yu Moumou for operation. When the traffic accident happened, Qin handed the car over to Song Moumou, the replacement driver.
After the accident, the victim He Moumou sued the driver, insurance company, car owner and vehicle owner to the court, demanding that the above-mentioned defendants compensate for their losses * * * 288410.6438+01yuan.
submit to trial
The Panyu District People's Court of Guangzhou held that the plaintiff He Moumou was indeed a member of his vehicle before the traffic accident, but when the traffic accident happened, the plaintiff was thrown out of the car. Combined with the plaintiff's severe craniocerebral injury, it is reasonable to think that his injury mainly occurred when he fell to the ground, and when the plaintiff was thrown out of the car due to a traffic accident, he was no longer a member of his own vehicle. From the perspective of protecting the victims of traffic accidents, the defendant China United Insurance should deal with the plaintiff's injury and pay compensation within the limits of compulsory insurance. The first instance ruled that the two insurance companies each compensated the plaintiff He Moumou for losses within the compulsory insurance limit, and the two insurance companies assumed joint liability; The insufficient part shall be jointly and severally liable by other defendants according to the proportion of traffic accident liability.
Appellant (defendant of first instance) China United Insurance refused to accept the judgment of first instance and appealed to Guangzhou Intermediate People's Court. It is believed that the victim He Moumou flew out of the car after being hit. In this case, he should still be recognized as a member of his own car and not as a third party.
The second instance of Guangzhou Intermediate People's Court held that whether He Moumou belongs to "the person on the bus" should be judged according to his spatial position at the moment of the traffic accident. When the traffic accident happened, He was still in the car and was thrown out of the car after the collision. If there were no traffic accidents that led to the collision between two cars, He Moumou would not have been thrown out of the car, and the injury after being thrown out of the car was not caused by the collision or contact of Guangdong ace**0 taxi. Therefore, in this traffic accident, He Moumou did not change from "the person in the car" to "the person under the car", and he should still be "the person in his car" when the traffic accident happened. To sum up, this case does not meet the applicable conditions of compulsory motor vehicle insurance, and China United Insurance does not need to be liable for compensation to He Moumou within the limit of compulsory insurance liability. The original judgment lacks factual and legal basis and should be corrected. The appeal grounds of China United Insurance are established, which are adopted to support its appeal request. According to the provisions of Item (1) and Item (3) of Paragraph 1 of Article 153 of the Civil Procedure Law of People's Republic of China (PRC), after discussion by the judicial committee, the verdict is as follows: 1. Maintain Items 4 and 5 of Civil Judgment No.357 1 of Panyu District People's Court of Guangzhou (2009); 2. The first item of the civil judgment No.357 1 issued by Panyu District People's Court of Guangzhou (2009) is: Ping An Insurance shall compensate He Moumou within the medical compensation limit of motor vehicle traffic accident liability compulsory insurance and 25,474.82 yuan within the death and disability limit; Three. The second item of the civil judgment No.357 1 issued by Panyu District People's Court of Guangzhou (2009) is: Song shall compensate He Moumou 152706.33 yuan within five days from the date of service of this judgment, and Li Moujia, Qin, Yu Moumou and Song Moumou shall be jointly and severally liable for repayment; Four. The third item of the civil judgment No.3571issued by Panyu District People's Court of Guangzhou: liying shall compensate He Moumou for 59,260.78 yuan within five days from the date of service of this judgment.
Comment and analysis
First, the analysis of the focus of the case dispute
The focus of the dispute in this case is whether He Moumou, the injured victim who was thrown out of the car, is the "vehicle owner" or the "third person" relative to the vehicle he was riding. In order to solve the above-mentioned focus problems, the following steps should be followed:
First of all, we should understand the original intention of excluding "people on board" from the scope of compulsory insurance compensation for traffic accident liability. Compulsory liability insurance for motor vehicle road traffic accidents, which is enforced by national laws, not only has the risk management function of general insurance, but also has the function of social security, and its main purpose is to remedy the damage suffered by victims in accidents. Due to the compulsory nature of compulsory insurance, the scope of compulsory insurance for victims or third parties should be limited by laws and regulations. Article 3 of the Regulations on Compulsory Liability Insurance for Motor Vehicle Traffic Accidents stipulates that the victims do not include the persons on board and the insured. The above provisions exclude the occupants of the vehicle from the scope of the third party, mainly considering the following aspects: First, based on the trust relationship between the occupants and the driver and the occupant's ability to assist and control the vehicle driving, the occupants have certain foresight and prevention capabilities for possible accidents during driving; Second, limited by the compensation limit and the actual affordability of the insured, it is necessary to concentrate the limited compensation limit of compulsory insurance in the scope of the "third party" that needs the most protection; Thirdly, the traffic safety of passengers has been guaranteed to a certain extent through other systems. Article 36 of the Regulations on Road Transportation promulgated in May 2004 stipulates that passenger vehicles engaged in passenger transport services must purchase carrier liability insurance, which provides protection for the rights and interests of such unspecified passengers to a certain extent, and there is no need to repeat the provisions in the compulsory motor vehicle traffic accident liability insurance system.
Secondly, based on the above understanding, this paper analyzes the facts of this case: the victim He Moumou had been riding the vehicle involved before the traffic accident, and he maintained the same relationship with the driver. Until the moment of the traffic accident, He Moumou's ability to predict and prevent the driving situation of the vehicle did not change. When two cars collided, that is, after a traffic accident, the victim He Moumou was thrown out of the car based on external force, thus changing the sharing relationship between the victim He Moumou and the driver. However, the change of spatial position caused by external force cannot deny the trust relationship between the victim He Moumou and the driver before the accident and his ability to predict and prevent the driving situation of the vehicle, so the victim He Moumou does not belong to the scope of the "third person" in the compulsory insurance system.
Second, the difference in the trial thinking path reflected by the difference between the first-instance and second-instance judgments in this case.
At first glance, the definition and transformation of "the person in the car" and "the third person" in traffic accidents is a simple matter of fact-finding, but if we dig deeper, the difference between the first-instance judgment and the second-instance judgment in this case reflects two different ways of thinking. Looking closely at whether the plaintiff He Moumou is a member of his own vehicle, the first-instance judgment emphasizes "from the perspective of protecting the victims of traffic accidents", and thus it is determined that the plaintiff He Moumou has changed from "a member of his own vehicle" to "a third person". Obviously, the first-instance judgment focuses on the social effect of the case, from the perspective of protecting the victim, and then returns to the factual analysis of whether the victim belongs to the "person on board". This is a way of thinking to infer fact finding and legal application from social effects. Although controversial, it is not uncommon in trial practice. During the second trial, there was also controversy. One view is that the original judgment is reasonable. Because the concept of "people on board" is not clear at present, the plaintiff He Moumou should be regarded as a "third person" from the perspective of establishing a compulsory insurance system and protecting the interests of traffic accident victims. Another point of view is that judging whether the plaintiff He Moumou is a "vehicle employee" in the trial should be based on the analysis of facts and laws and regulations. Considering the social effect, it is far-fetched to identify him as a "third party", which violates the provisions of the Regulations on Compulsory Insurance for Motor Vehicle Traffic Accidents and the basic trial principle of "taking facts as the basis and taking law as the criterion". In the end, the case was discussed by the collegiate bench and the judicial committee, and most of the opinions adopted the second opinion, and the plaintiff He Moumou was identified as a "vehicle person", which reflected the recognition of the above-mentioned thinking path of the second instance.
Third, the handling of similar cases.
It is worth mentioning that since the establishment of the compulsory insurance system, there is still no corresponding laws, regulations or judicial interpretation to clarify the transformation between "the person in the car" and "the third party". Many courts have encountered similar difficult cases, which are mainly divided into two types: the victim was injured after being thrown out of the car after a traffic accident and the victim was injured after being hit or crushed by a car again. For the first case, there are two main ways to deal with various cases, which are consistent with the views of the first instance and the second instance of this case, and the views consistent with the views of the second instance of this case are more common. However, in another case, that is, the victim was hit or crushed again after being thrown out of the car. In most cases, it was found that the passenger who originally belonged to "his own car" had left the original car and became a "third party" before being hit or crushed again by the car. Therefore, the damage suffered by him should fall within the scope of compensation for compulsory vehicle insurance, and the corresponding case published by the Supreme Court in the the Supreme People's Court Gazette also confirmed this treatment.
Case 3
After being thrown out of the car, the passenger instantly becomes a "third party", and the insurance company still has to lose money.
Young Liu drove Shen's borrowed car to Xuyi. On the way, Shen lost control and overtook, and the car rushed into the ditch and overturned. In an instant, Xiao Liu was thrown out of the car and was killed by a car. After the incident, the insurance company refused to pay compensation on the grounds that "Xiao Liu is a passenger in the car and does not belong to the third party stipulated in the compulsory insurance". To this end, Xiao Liu's parents took Shen and the insurance company insured by the car to court.
How is Xiao Liu's "identity" determined? Does the insurance company need compensation?
On May 20108/KLOC-0, Shen and his friend Xiao Liu drove to Xuyi County. Shen drove west to east along Route 33 1 Provincial Highway 1. When he drove to 33 1 provincial highway 253 kilometers, he overtook a large truck driving in the same direction. Because of the direction out of control, the car suddenly rushed into the left ditch and overturned. Xiao Liu was thrown out of the car by surprise. After landing, he was hit by a rolling car and died on the spot.
According to the traffic patrol department, in this accident, Shen borrowed someone else's car and he had his own driver's license. However, during the driving process, he was speeding on the road with a speed limit of 70 kilometers and overtaking on the road with a solid yellow line in the middle. In case of emergency, he made mistakes in operation and failed to drive safely according to the operation specifications, which violated the relevant provisions of the Road Traffic Safety Law and should bear full responsibility for the accident.
Soon, Shen and Xiao Liu's parents reached a compensation agreement: regardless of the nature of the final accident, Shen compensated the deceased for related expenses of 6.5438+0.7 million yuan, and the rest paid compensation of 3.65438+0.6 million yuan within the scope of compulsory insurance and third party liability insurance for accident vehicles, of which 6.5438+0.6 million yuan was owned by Xiao Liu's parents. After reaching an agreement, Shen compensated Xiao Liu's parents for 6.5438+0.7 million yuan.
The deceased was not recognized as a "third party" and the insurance refused to pay compensation. In the year of the crime, Shen was sentenced to a suspended sentence of 1 year by the Xuyi County Court in the first instance for traffic accidents. The problem of compensation caused by Xiao Liu's unfortunate death has not been solved. Because the insurance company refused to pay compensation, Xiao Liu's parents took Shenhe Insurance Company to court and claimed more than 480,000 yuan.
Shen has no excuse for this. The insurance company argued that there was no objection to the fact that there was a traffic accident, but it did not admit the responsibility of the accident. Because the deceased Xiao Liu was a passenger at that time, he should pay for the people in the car, not the "third party" who paid the traffic insurance. Therefore, it should not be liable for compensation within the scope of compulsory insurance.
The court held that in this accident, Xiao Liu was thrown out of the car driven by Shen and was later killed by the car. Compared with the car he used to ride, he belongs to the "third party" who should pay strong insurance. Accordingly, the court of first instance ruled that the insurance company compensated Xiao Liu's parents for death compensation, mental damage compensation110000; Shen compensated 50 thousand yuan.
The insurance company refused to accept the judgment and filed an appeal in the first half of this year.
Judge's comment:
When the passenger flew out of the car, his identity had changed. The judge in charge of the trial of Huai 'an Intermediate People's Court told Yangzi Evening News reporter that according to Article 2 1 of the Regulations on Compulsory Liability Insurance for Motor Vehicle Traffic Accidents, if a traffic accident occurs in an insured motor vehicle, causing personal injury or property loss to the victims other than the people on board and the insured, the insurance company shall compensate them within the compulsory liability limit for motor vehicle traffic accidents. At one time, some people thought that according to this regulation, the object of compulsory insurance has excluded vehicle personnel from the scope of "third party". However, in this case, before the traffic accident, although Xiao Liu was a member of the vehicle, the vehicle involved was out of control due to the driver's mistake, and Xiao Liu was thrown out of the car and was hit by the vehicle involved, causing death on the spot. Therefore, when Xiao Liu was hit by the vehicle involved, he was not above the vehicle, but below it. In other words, because of the change of specific time and space conditions, Xiao Liu has changed from a person in the car to a "third party" outside the car. According to the above provisions, the insurance company shall compensate the victim for personal injury and property loss within the liability limit of compulsory insurance. Therefore, from the original intention of establishing compulsory insurance and protecting the rights and interests of victims, Xiao Liu should belong to the category of "third party", and this expansive explanation does not violate the original intention of legislation.
A few days ago, Huai 'an Intermediate People's Court made a second-instance ruling, dismissed the insurance company's appeal and upheld the original judgment.
The car hit a passenger who flew out of the car. Should the insurance company that underwrites this car's compulsory insurance be liable for the passengers who fly out?
Reference answer:
From the moment he flew out of the car, the identity of the "original passenger" changed from the "person on board" to the "third party" in the compulsory insurance of motor vehicles, so he was liable for compensation.