The driver was injured by the steel pipe on the car when he stopped to unload the car, which is not a traffic accident, and the compulsory traffic insurance does not need to be compensated

Preface

The retrial of the Shandong Provincial High People's Court clarified that the following basic conditions should be met, and the traffic accident must be caused by the vehicle, occur on the road, occur during movement, including the vehicle in the process of driving or parking, and have harmful consequences. If the driver starts to unload the rope after stopping, and is accidentally injured by the steel pipe that slides down the car in the process of unwinding the rope, it is not a traffic accident, and the insurance company does not need to bear the liability for compensation of compulsory traffic insurance and commercial insurance.

Jin Mouhua and China Pacific Property Insurance Co., Ltd. Liaocheng Central Branch Motor Vehicle Traffic Accident Liability Dispute

-- If the driver starts to unload the rope after stopping, and is accidentally injured by the steel pipe that slides off the car in the process of unloading the rope, is it a traffic accident? Should the insurance company bear the liability for compensation for compulsory traffic insurance and commercial insurance?

Case index

First instance: People's Court of Dongchangfu District, Liaocheng City, Shandong Province (2020) Lu 1502 Min Chu No. 4052

Second instance: Liaocheng Intermediate People's Court of Shandong Province (2020) Lu 15 Min Zhong No. 3781

Retrial: Shandong Provincial High People's Court (2021) Lu Min Shen No. 6699

Basic facts of the case

On July 27, 2019, the plaintiff Jin Mouhua drove a grid truck to transport steel pipes to Tenglong Company, and arrived at the company's factory area. After the incident, Xu, a person accompanying the car, used his mobile phone to dial 110/122 to call the police, 95519 insurance and 120 to give first aid to plaintiff Jin Mouhua.

After the plaintiff was injured, he was sent to a hospital for 102 days of hospitalization, and his injuries were forensically evaluated, and the appraisal opinion was that the plaintiff's injuries constituted one Grade 9 disability and two Grade 10 disabilities.

The grid truck driven by the plaintiff Jin Mouhua was insured with compulsory traffic insurance and commercial insurance (including excluding deductibles) at the Liaocheng Central Branch of China Pacific Property Insurance Co., Ltd., and the accident occurred within the insurance period. Jin Mouhua was a driver hired by Wang Mouwen and caused an accident in the process of providing labor services. The plaintiff insisted on handling it as a motor vehicle traffic accident liability dispute case.

Jin Mouhua filed a lawsuit with the court of first instance and requested: order the defendant to compensate for various losses totaling 721,529.2 yuan.

Court rulings

The People's Court of Dongchangfu District, Liaocheng City, Shandong Province held that Jin Mouhua was injured by a sliding steel pipe on the car in the process of stopping and unloading (that is, when the vehicle was stopped), which was not caused by a traffic accident, and that Cash Mouhua insisted on demanding that Pacific Insurance Liaocheng Company bear the liability for compensation within the limits of compulsory traffic insurance and commercial insurance as a third party, which had no factual basis and legal basis, and was not supported in accordance with law. Therefore, the (2020) Lu 1502 Min Chu No. 4052 Civil Judgment was rendered: rejecting the plaintiff Jin Mouhua's litigation claim.

After the first-instance judgment was rendered, Jin Mouhua was dissatisfied and appealed, requesting that the first-instance judgment be revoked and that the judgment be changed in accordance with law to support all his litigation claims. The reasons are as follows: First, the evidence submitted by the appellant can prove that the appellant's injuries were an accident that occurred in the course of using the vehicle, and the court of first instance did not determine the facts of the case, which is unclear. In the first instance, the appellant submitted photographs of the accident scene, medical records, a certificate issued by the unit where the accident occurred, and a certificate issued by the 110 traffic police command center of Nanle County, and the appellee had no objection to the above evidence, so that it could be confirmed that the appellant was injured in the process of untying the rope of the accident vehicle. As a freight vehicle, the main purpose of the vehicle involved in the case is to transport goods, and each link of loading, unloading, tethering, and untying is an indispensable link in the use of the vehicle, but the court of first instance held that the accident vehicle was in a state of stopping, not in the process of using the vehicle, and that the facts were unclear. Second, according to the provisions of Paragraphs 1 and 5 of Article 119 of the Supplementary Provisions of the Road Traffic Safety Law, the accidental injuries that occurred in the course of the appellant's use of the vehicle fell within the scope of traffic accidents. The court of first instance erred in applying the law by finding that the case was not a traffic accident. First of all, according to Article 119 of the Supplementary Provisions of the Road Traffic Safety Law, the scope of the road for motor vehicles, From the broad interpretation and explanation of the use and the definition of traffic accident, it can be seen that the place of injury of the vehicle driven by the appellant was on the road inside the courtyard of Henan Tenglong Pipe Industry Technology Co., Ltd., which is a road where foreign vehicles are allowed to pass to transport goods: and the evidence submitted by the appellant can prove that the accident occurred in the process of using the accident vehicle to untie the rope, and the appellant's request to deal with it as a traffic accident is not improper. Secondly, according to the interpretation of Article 97 of the Road Traffic Safety Law Implementation Regulations of the People's Republic of China edited by the Department of Political and Legal Affairs of the State Council, pages 223-224 of the Interpretation of the Road Traffic Implementation Regulations

content, it can be confirmed that the case falls within the scope of strict implementation of the Road Traffic Law and the regulations for the implementation of the Road Traffic Law. Therefore, it was not improper for the Appellant to request the Appellee to bear the liability for compensation within the scope of compulsory traffic insurance and commercial third-party insurance in accordance with the traffic accident. Thirdly, the <中华人民共和国道路交通安全法>Interpretation also explains: "The traffic accident stipulated in the Road Traffic Safety Law is no longer based on whether the party violates the rules and regulations, and if the party does not violate the rules but causes the accident due to negligence or improper operation, or if there is no fault and only causes personal injury or death and property damage due to the accident, it can constitute a road traffic accident." Accordingly, the appellant was injured when the car untied the rope after parking due to the displacement of the steel pipe on the vehicle, and the reason for the displacement of the steel pipe was that the vehicle involved in the case transported the steel pipe from Xi'an, Shaanxi Province to Nanle County, Henan Province, after a long distance of bumps, and the appellant untied the four ropes and found no abnormality in the steel pipe, and the accidental slippage occurred when untying the last rope, which was unpredictable to the appellant, therefore, the appellant's injury was a damage caused by an accident in the course of normal use of the vehicle, and belonged to the Road Traffic Safety Law In the definition of road traffic accidents in the supplementary provisions, the court of first instance found that this case was not a traffic accident and was an error in the application of law. Thirdly, the appellant was a third party involved in the traffic accident. First of all, according to the answer to question 16 of the Second Civil Division of the Shandong High Court: Answers to Several Questions Concerning the Trial of Insurance Contract Dispute Cases: The "third party" in the commercial insurance of motor vehicle third party liability refers to a person other than the insured and the person on the vehicle who suffers personal injury or property damage due to an accident in the insured vehicle. The main basis for determining whether the victim is a third party or a person in the vehicle shall be based on the mutual spatial position of the victim and the insured vehicle at a specific point in time when the accident occurred and was injured. At the time of the accident, the vehicle driven by the appellant had stopped moving, and the rope was untied from the car and injured by the steel pipe on the vehicle, which was a third party in the traffic accident. Secondly, according to Article 3 of the third party liability insurance clause of the motor vehicle, "the third party in this insurance contract refers to the person who suffers personal injury or property damage due to an accident of the insured motor vehicle, but does not include the persons on the insured motor vehicle, the policyholder, the insured and the insurer", the appellant was under the car at the time of the accident, and did not belong to the person on the vehicle, nor did he belong to the policyholder or the insured, and met the conditions stipulated in the above clause. Fourth, the appellant's losses should be borne by the appellee within the insurance limit in accordance with the law, which is based on the law. First of all, according to Article 4 of the third party liability insurance clause of the motor vehicle, the insurance liability is: "During the insurance period, if the insured or the legal driver allowed by the insured has an accident in the course of using the insured motor vehicle, resulting in personal injury or death or direct damage to the property of the third party, the insured shall be liable for damages according to law" At the moment of the accident, the appellant was injured by the accidental slipping and falling of the steel pipe carried by the insured vehicle, which met the compensation conditions stipulated in the above provisions. Secondly, according to the general provisions of the "Interpretation of Motor Vehicle Insurance Terms" (Bao Jian Fa [2000] No. 102) issued by the China Insurance Regulatory Commission: "The process of using the insured vehicle: the entire process of the insured vehicle being used as a tool, including driving and parking. "In this case, the accident vehicle was parked, but untying was an indispensable part of the unloading process of the vehicle involved, and it also belonged to the process of using the vehicle. Article 2 of the Interpretation stipulates the insurance liability of third-party liability insurance: "If an accident occurs in the course of using the insured vehicle and causes the third party to suffer personal injury or death or direct damage to property, the insurer shall compensate the insured in accordance with the provisions of the Measures for the Handling of Road Traffic Accidents and the insurance contract, and clearly indicates what an accident is:" It is not intentional on the part of the perpetrator, but an unforeseeable and irresistible contingency of the perpetrator that causes casualties or damage to property. In this case, the accident was not intentional by the appellant, and it was an unforeseeable accident, which was in line with the provisions of the Interpretation that compensation should be paid. It is clear that the appellee compensated the appellant for a total of 721,529.2 yuan in various expenses, and the compilation of common legal issues in traffic accidents comes from the Provincial High Court's official account law popularization column platform on August 28, 2020, and the judicial case study institute of the Supreme People's Court, and the 30th question in the compilation of issues can prove that this case should be within the scope of the "Road Traffic Safety Law".

The Intermediate People's Court of Liaocheng City, Shandong Province held that the focus of the dispute in this case was: whether the damage caused by the appellant Jin Mouhua's injury was caused by a traffic accident involving the vehicle involved in the case, and whether the appellee should bear the liability for compensation within the limits of compulsory traffic insurance and commercial insurance. Appellant Jin Mouhua was accidentally injured by a steel pipe that slipped from the car during the unloading process of unlancing the cable after parking, and the vehicle had been in a state of suspension and no control, and the process of the appellant's injury was comprehensively analyzed, and the cause of his injury was not caused by a traffic accident of the vehicle that caused the accident, and it did not fall within the scope of compensation of compulsory traffic insurance and commercial insurance, so the appellee should not be liable for compensation in the compulsory traffic insurance and commercial third party insurance. Therefore, the (2020) Lu 15 Min Zhong No. 3781 Civil Judgment was rendered: the appeal was rejected and the original judgment was upheld.

After the second-instance judgment was rendered, Jin Mouhua was dissatisfied and applied for a retrial.

The Shandong Provincial High People's Court held that Article 119 of the Road Traffic Safety Law of the People's Republic of China stipulates that "a traffic accident refers to an incident in which a vehicle is injured or injured or property damaged due to fault or accident on the road." Paragraph 1 of Article 70 stipulates that "in the event of a traffic accident on the road, the driver of the vehicle shall immediately stop the vehicle to protect the scene; if any casualties are caused, the driver of the vehicle shall immediately rescue the injured person and promptly report to the traffic police on duty or the traffic management department of the public security organ. Passengers, drivers of passing vehicles, and passing pedestrians shall assist. Article 77 stipulates that "if an accident occurs when a vehicle is passing outside the road, and the traffic management department of the public security organ receives a report, it shall handle it with reference to the relevant provisions of this Law." "In light of the above-mentioned legal provisions, a traffic accident shall meet the following basic conditions, which must be caused by a vehicle, occur on the road, occur in motion, including the occurrence of a vehicle while driving or parking, and have harmful consequences. According to the ascertained facts in this case, the process of the accident in which Jin Mouhua was injured was "Jin Mouhua began to unload the rope after parking, and was accidentally injured by a steel pipe that slipped from the car in the process of untying the rope" Although the accident occurred on the road, Jin Mouhua's injuries were not caused by the vehicle, and the vehicle involved in the case was not in the process of driving or parking, and the injury accident suffered by Jin Mouhua lacked the two basic conditions for determining the traffic accident caused by the vehicle and the vehicle in motion, and the original trial court did not erce in applying the law to determine that Jin Mouhua was not injured in the traffic accident. Since the accident involved in this case was not a traffic accident and did not fall within the scope of compensation under the compulsory traffic insurance and commercial third party insurance, CPIC Liaocheng Company should not be liable for compensation under the compulsory traffic insurance and commercial third party insurance. Therefore, the (2021) Lu Minshen No. 6699 Civil Ruling was made: rejecting Jin Mouhua's application for retrial.

Case discussion: Do you think that if the driver starts to unload the rope after stopping, and is accidentally injured by the steel pipe that slides from the car in the process of unloading the rope, is it a traffic accident and whether the insurance company must bear the liability for compensation?

Source: Typical Cases of Infringement Compensation

​