■Drawing by Chen Fengxiang
The driver has bought vehicle insurance, but in the event of an accident, will the insurance company definitely pay for it? If the child is bitten by a cute pet, how will the compensation liability be shared between the parents and the owner? Note that if the driver hits and runs, the insurance company can refuse to pay compensation. If you inappropriately tease, slap, chase, or intimidate your pet when teasing it, and cause damage due to your own gross negligence, you will be responsible for it.
Insurance "Not Covered"
●Accident accident driver "hit and run"
●The insurance company will only pay within the compulsory traffic insurance
In October 2020, when Wang was driving a car on a certain section of a road in a city in Guangxi, he collided with a motorcycle traveling in the opposite direction, causing the motorcycle driver Zhao to die on the spot and motorcycle passenger Li to be injured. After the incident, Wang abandoned the car and left the scene, and Li died after being rescued, and the local traffic police brigade determined that Wang bore full responsibility for the accident. After mediation by the local road traffic accident dispute mediation committee, Wang negotiated a mediation agreement with the families of the two deceased on loss compensation, and Wang compensated the family members for death compensation, funeral expenses, and mental injury solatium totaling 740,000 yuan.
Previously, Wang purchased compulsory traffic accident liability insurance and 500,000 yuan of commercial third-party liability insurance from an insurance company for the car. After the accident, the insurance company paid compensation within the scope of compulsory traffic insurance, but Wang believed that the insurance company should also pay 500,000 yuan in compensation for commercial insurance. In this regard, the insurance company refused to compensate on the grounds that Wang's "hit-and-run" was a deductible.
Wang believes that although he has escaped and needs to bear the corresponding administrative or criminal liability in accordance with the law, the insurance compensation due to him should not be exempted, and the insurance company should perform the compensation obligation in accordance with the insurance contract. Moreover, the exemption clause in the insurance contract was a standard clause, and he did not sign and confirm the exemption clause, and the insurance company failed to fulfill its obligation to prompt and explain. Therefore, the insurance company's refusal to pay is unjustified.
The insurance company argued that the insurance company had compensated Wang more than 188,000 yuan within the limit of the compulsory traffic insurance. Moreover, Wang's "abandonment of the car and escape" after the incident is a deductible in commercial insurance, and the insurance company has made a reminder of the exemption clause in the policy. At the same time, Wang's economic compensation for the victim's family is the consideration he paid to reduce the punishment, and if the illegal act can still be compensated within the scope of commercial insurance, it is tantamount to encouraging illegal and criminal acts, so the insurance company's refusal to compensate for commercial insurance is legal and justified.
Location: Guangzhou Tianhe District People's Court.
Result: The court rejected all of Wang's claims in accordance with the law.
The judge said: Article 70 of the Mainland Road Traffic Safety Law stipulates that drivers have the legal obligation to protect the scene and rescue the injured after a traffic accident. The Commercial Insurance Contract involved in the case was based on the driver's legal obligations, specifically stipulating that "hit-and-run from the accident" was one of the reasons for the deductible, and did not increase the liability burden of the insured, so the exemption clause was legal and valid.
The evidence in the case shows that Wang was fully responsible for the traffic accident in this case and escaped after the accident, and his behavior was a prohibited act stipulated by laws and administrative regulations, which met the exemption circumstances in the insurance contract. Therefore, the insurance company is not liable for compensation. In addition, a traffic hit-and-run accident will cause serious consequences such as affecting the determination of accident liability, delaying the rescue of the injured or causing a secondary accident, which is an illegal act expressly prohibited by law. As a driver, Wang should be familiar with the provisions of the Road Traffic Safety Law, and be clear about the meaning and legal consequences of the act of causing and fleeing. If Wang's traffic hit-and-run illegal behavior can be compensated by insurance, it is also contrary to social order and good customs. Therefore, the court ruled in accordance with the law to reject all of Wang's claims.
Tease the dog to be bitten
●A boy is bitten by a dog
● The keeper is responsible for seventy percent
One evening in May 2022, a 6-year-old boy Dongdong was playing with several children in the open space of the community, and Dongdong's mother was walking near the open space with her little daughter in her arms. During the play, Dongdong saw a golden retriever puppy walking over the grass, the puppy was not tied to a leash, did not wear a protective mask, and the dog owner was not around. The children thought the puppy was very cute and came up to play with it. In the process of teasing the dog, Dongdong was bitten by a puppy, and his left buttocks were cut out by canine teeth, and red blood spots appeared. Seeing this, Dongdong's mother immediately sent him to the hospital for treatment and was injected with a rabies vaccine. Later, Dongdong's family called the police, and the public security department retrieved the surveillance video of the road section where the incident occurred, and found that the owner of the biting yellow puppy was Mr. Wang. The police station then informed Mr. Wang to negotiate compensation with Dongdong's mother, but because the two parties could not reach an agreement on the amount of compensation, Dongdong's parents sued Mr. Wang to the court, demanding compensation for medical expenses, transportation expenses, nursing expenses, spiritual solace and other losses.
Mr. Wang believes that Dongdong should also bear the corresponding responsibility for kicking and chasing the dog when playing with the puppy, and should not bear all the liability for compensation.
Location: Nansha District People's Court, Guangzhou.
Result: The court ruled in the first instance that Mr. Wang should compensate Dongdong for medical expenses, nursing expenses, transportation expenses, and solatium for mental damages totaling more than 2,600 yuan. The verdict is now in force.
Judge's statement: Judge Chen Guosheng of the Nansha District People's Court of Guangzhou Municipality said that according to the relevant provisions of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China, when the raised animal causes damage to others, regardless of whether the keeper or manager is at fault, it should bear tort liability, and only when it is proved that the damage is caused by the intentional or gross negligence of the infringed party, the liability of the keeper or manager can be exempted or reduced. Mr. Wang, as the keeper and manager of the dog involved in the case, failed to take safety measures such as leashing the dog and wearing a muzzle on his dog, resulting in Dongdong's injury, and should bear tort liability.
On the other hand, according to the surveillance video obtained in accordance with the law, Dongdong deliberately teased the dog while playing with it. As a minor with no capacity for civil conduct, Dongdong cannot correctly judge whether the dog is dangerous, and his legal guardian shall perform guardianship duties to protect Dongdong's personal safety. Dongdong's legal guardian still allowed Dongdong to contact and play with the dog even though he did not know whether the dog raised by Mr. Wang was in danger of attack, resulting in Dongdong's injury, and the guardian was negligent in his guardianship, that is, Dongdong was grossly negligent, so Mr. Wang's liability could be reduced as appropriate. Based on the fault of the parties and the extent of the cause of the damage, the court determined that Dongdong Party should bear 30% of the liability and Mr. Wang should bear 70% of the compensation liability for the accident. According to the evidence provided by Dongdong's parents, such as medical bills, Mr. Wang was sentenced to pay more than 2,600 yuan in compensation.
Beware of cute pets
●The child is scratched by the cat in the cat café
●The court ruled that the management company was fully liable
Ms. Liang took her daughter Xuanxuan to a shopping mall on the weekend and saw a pet store operated by a management company, providing consumer services such as petting cats and dogs. Because Xuanxuan likes cats, Ms. Liang paid for a ticket for her daughter to play. In the process of petting the cat, Xuanxuan was scratched on the back by a pet cat, and then went to the hospital for treatment. According to the hospital's diagnosis, the wound was a multiple animal bite and required four doses of domestic rabies vaccine.
Xuanxuan and her parents sued a management company to the court, demanding compensation of 1,403 yuan for medical expenses, 224 yuan for transportation expenses, 2,500 yuan for lost work, and 1,000 yuan for mental damages.
A management company argued that Xuanxuan's mesh skirt swept to the cat at the time of the incident, and the cat thought that there was a cat stick to tease it, so it reflexively made an action of stretching out its claws to interact, and the accident had a causal relationship with the girl's own behavior. And the cats involved in the interaction are all pet cats, all have been vaccinated, and the guardian was also informed when entering the park, and the guardianship responsibility for the child play is borne by the parents. He said that he was only willing to bear 50% of the cost of the four-dose vaccine and part of the transportation expenses, totaling 562 yuan.
Location: Guangzhou Haizhu District People's Court.
Result: The Haizhu District Court ruled in the first instance that a management company should compensate Xuanxuan 2,398 yuan in a lump sum and rejected Xuanxuan's other claims. A management company was dissatisfied and appealed. The Guangzhou Intermediate People's Court rejected the appeal in the second instance and upheld the original judgment.
Judge's statement: Judge Yu Hong of the Guangzhou Intermediate People's Court said that a management company is the manager of a pet cat, and the company should bear tort liability for the damage caused by the pet cat scratching Xuanxuan. After reviewing the video of the accident, combined with the statements of both parties and other evidence, the accident was a pet cat that suddenly attacked and scratched Xuanxuan's back from behind, and Xuanxuan and her mother did not have any faulty behaviors such as slapping the cat, scaring her, forcibly hugging, and chasing the cat. In addition, the cat playground is set up in the shopping mall, and the play guidelines set by a management company are applicable to the age of 5 years or older, the child is accompanied by parents, Xuanxuan was over 6 years old at the time of the incident, and there were also parents accompanied after admission, and the place where the injury occurred was in the cat playground managed by a management company, so from the above circumstances, Xuanxuan and her mother were not seen to be grossly negligent. In summary, the court held that a management company, as the manager of pet cats, should bear all tort liability.
■New Express reporter Gao Jing Yang Xiyin