The case is explained丨 When walking, he collided with the old man, causing serious injuries to the other party! What is the responsibility? The court has decided!

Walking on the road and passing by others,

It's normal.

But if two people walk and bump into each other,

One of the parties also fell and was seriously injured,

The injured person demands compensation from the other party,

How should responsibility be shared at this time?

Recently, the Shanghai No. 1 Intermediate People's Court (hereinafter referred to as the Shanghai No. 1 Intermediate People's Court) heard the right to health dispute case, and the second instance rejected the attacker's appeal request for compensation, and upheld the judgment that both parties in the first instance bear half of the responsibility.

Walking collided, the injured claimed 330,000

One day in June 2020, Lao Wang crossed the zebra crossing from north to south and was preparing to step on the sidewalk with one foot, just when Ah Di walked from west to north to the intersection of the sidewalk, the two touched each other, and Ah Di fell to the ground.

This fall was not light, and Ah Di could not get up when she sat on the ground. Lao Wang hurriedly dialed 110 to call the police and called a taxi to take Ah Di to the hospital for examination. After diagnosis, the 63-year-old Ah Di fractured his right femur and was hospitalized for more than 20 days. During this period, Ah Di also underwent fracture reduction and internal fixation surgery, spending a total of more than 120,000 yuan in medical expenses.

Ah Di: I was walking normally at that time, and suddenly I was knocked to the ground by Lao Wang, who was looking at the other side and rushing to the other side, so I was hospitalized with a fracture, and Lao Wang's behavior constituted an infringement on my right to health, and Lao Wang should compensate.

Lao Wang: According to the walking direction of the two people and the road monitoring at that time, it was not me who hit Ah Di, but someone else, probably a tall passerby who passed by quickly at that time, and Ah Di's fracture was related to his own osteoporosis, and I refused any compensation.

Ah Di then sued Lao Wang to the court, requesting the court to order Lao Wang to compensate for medical expenses, lost work expenses, nursing expenses, disability compensation, etc. totaling more than 330,000 yuan.

The court of first instance held after trial

In this case, Ah Di and Lao Wang were walking normally, but both parties neglected to observe, failed to perform the necessary duty of care, and avoided giving way, resulting in a collision and Ah Di falling to the ground and being injured, and both parties were responsible. For the losses caused by Ah Di's injury, ah di and Lao Wang should each bear half of them. Lao Wang believed that it was a third person who caused Ah Di to fall to the ground and was injured, and the basis was insufficient, and he was not accepted.

After verification, Ah Di's reasonable loss was more than 274,000 yuan, and the court of first instance ordered both parties to bear half of the total costs, that is, more than 137,000 yuan.

The evidence is clear and the responsibility is half-

The hitter pays 137,000 yuan

Lao Wang was not satisfied and appealed to the Shanghai First Intermediate Court.

Lao Wang: The existing evidence cannot prove that I collided with Ah Di on the sidewalk, but that the outsider and Ah Di had a physical collision.

In the course of the second-instance trial, Ah Di submitted an alarm recording retrieved from the police receiving platform of the Public Security Bureau, and the policeman was Lao Wang, the main content of which involved the policeman Lao Wang stating that he walked and collided with an old man, and the old man was injured. Ah Di believes that this recording can prove that the cause of the accident is that the two sides collided at the intersection, and her injuries were caused by her collision with Lao Wang.

After hearing the recording, Lao Wang changed his mouth to say that the actual situation was a collision between three people, that the outsider was the direct perpetrator, that the court of first instance directly exempted the direct perpetrator from responsibility, and that it was wrong to blame Lao Wang for doing a good deed.

After trial, the Shanghai First Intermediate People's Court held that:

The focus of the dispute in this case was whether there was a collision between the parties, whether Ah Di's injury to the ground was caused by a collision with Lao Wang, and whether Ah Di's damage costs should be borne by Lao Wang.

Combined with the content of evidence such as the surveillance video of the intersection of the crime, the information of the 110 alarm office registration form, and the recording of the receiving platform, it can be clear that Lao Wang and Ah Di collided, and Ah Di's injury was indeed caused by Lao Wang. Lao Wang clearly stated in the police that he collided with Ah Di, and Ah Di was injured as a result, and did not mention that outsiders also collided with the parties in this case.

Therefore, Lao Wang's defense opinion in this case is clearly contrary to the facts in the case, and it belongs to his argument of evading and shirking the responsibility that he should bear, and is not accepted. The court of first instance found that it was not improper to find that the two parties were half responsible on the basis of the facts in the case.

In summary, the Shanghai First Intermediate People's Court rejected the appeal and upheld the original judgment. (All used in the text are pseudonyms)

★

Judge's Statement

According to the law, where the perpetrator infringes upon the civil rights and interests of others due to fault and causes damage, he shall bear tort liability. Where the infringed party is at fault for the occurrence or expansion of the same damage, the liability of the infringer may be reduced. In this case, Lao Wang knocked down Ah Di and injured him, causing him losses, and Ah Di was also neglected to observe, and there was a certain fault, so Lao Wang's tort liability could be mitigated.

The judge reminded, "There are thousands of roads, and safety is the first." "No matter what kind of travel mode is used, you need to remember the traffic safety rules, be vigilant against traffic dangerous behaviors, avoid danger scientifically and reasonably, pay attention to observation, pay attention to the surroundings, and be safe for you and me." If an accident occurs, the injured should be actively rescued, compensated according to law afterwards, and assumed the legal responsibility that should be fulfilled.

Source: China Popularization of Law