Adjudication Rules for the Determination of Third Parties in Traffic Accidents (4)

Adjudication Rules for the Determination of Third Parties in Traffic Accidents (4)

50. Legal answer: In the case of motor vehicle traffic accident liability dispute, the vehicle is insured with third-party liability insurance, and according to the definition of third party in motor vehicle third-party liability insurance, the third party refers to the person who suffers personal injury or death or property damage due to an accident of the insured motor vehicle, but does not include the policyholder, the insured and the persons on board the insured motor vehicle. If the policyholder is struck by his vehicle outside of his vehicle, is the policyholder a third party as defined in the insurance contract?

【Q&A】:

shall belong to a third party. Since the design of the third-party liability insurance system in mainland China is based on motor vehicles rather than people (drivers), in the design of the third-party liability insurance system in mainland China, the policyholder is only a party to the insurance contract established with the insurer, and it is more of an obligation than a right in the insurance legal relationship, that is, the obligation to pay insurance premiums and perform the obligation to inform truthfully, while the insurance legal relationship, especially the property insurance legal relationship, not only includes the two parties to the establishment of the insurance contract, but also the more important subject of rights is the insured. In addition to the policyholder, the scope of the insured also includes the legal driver allowed by it, which leads to the separation of the policyholder and the actual driver of the car. Therefore, although the motor vehicle insurance contract stipulates that the insured includes the insured and the legal driver allowed by it, this is a general provision on the scope of the insured, and the "third party" and "insured" involved in the motor vehicle insurance contract are temporary identities under specific spatio-temporal conditions, that is, neither the "third party" nor the "insured" are permanent and fixed identities, and they can be transformed due to changes in specific spatio-temporal conditions. In practice, the insured and the legal driver allowed by the insured cannot appear as the insured at the same time, and can only choose one or the other, that is, in the specific case of a specific traffic accident, the insured is either the insured himself or the legal driver allowed by him. In other words, the so-called "insured" in motor vehicle insurance is a concept that needs to be specified and can only be determined when a traffic accident occurs. Therefore, when the policyholder is not in the car, the policyholder, like other ordinary third parties, loses control over the danger of the motor vehicle, and of course can also become a victim of third-party liability insurance compensation. At the same time, Article 14 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Cases of Compensation for Damages in Road Traffic Accidents stipulates that when the insured suffers damage caused by the driver of a motor vehicle permitted by the policyholder, the policyholder may also request compensation from the insurance company that underwrites the compulsory traffic insurance, unless the policyholder is a person in the vehicle. Although this article is a provision for compensation for compulsory traffic insurance, it clarifies that the insured can become a "third party" when he is outside the car, so as to claim compensation liability from the insurance company.

51. Jiangxi High People's Court Trial and Supervision Division: Adjudication rules on whether the passengers of the car can be converted into a third party

【Viewpoint Analysis】:

We believe that if a passenger of this vehicle is thrown out of the vehicle after being thrown out of the vehicle in a traffic accident, there is a possibility that it may be transformed into a third party due to the cause of the personal injury or death. When the personal injury or death suffered by the passengers of the vehicle after being thrown out of the vehicle after a traffic accident is directly caused by the risk on the vehicle, it shall be determined that their identity still belongs to the personnel on the vehicle; When a passenger of the vehicle is thrown out of the vehicle after a traffic accident occurs, and the personal injury or death is caused by the collision or crushing of the vehicle, it shall be considered that the personal injury or death caused by the risk outside the vehicle is directly caused by the risk outside the vehicle, and it can be determined that his identity has been transformed from the passenger of the vehicle to a third party. The reasons for the above adjudication rules are:

First, from the perspective of cause, the criterion for determining whether the victim is a third party should be determined by whether the proximate cause of the damage is a risk outside the vehicle or a risk inside the vehicle. According to the analysis of the design ideas of on-board personnel liability insurance and three-party insurance, on-board personnel liability insurance should be designed for the personal injury or death of on-board personnel caused by the in-vehicle risks of the vehicle, and only the in-vehicle risks of the vehicle are the decisive cause of the damage to the on-board personnel, which constitutes the proximate cause of the insurer's liability insurance for on-board personnel; The three-party insurance is designed for the personal injury or death of a third party that is uncertain outside the vehicle caused by the risk outside the vehicle, and only the risk outside the vehicle is the decisive cause of the third-party damage, which constitutes the proximate cause of the insurer's assumption of the three-party insurance.

According to the principle of proximate cause, in the case of damage caused by the continuous occurrence of multiple causes, the occurrence of various causes is continuous, and the antecedent cause is the direct and inevitable result of the antecedent, and it is the reasonable continuity of the antecedent. In this case, there is a causal relationship between the causes of the damage, and the cause of the first occurrence and the cascade of accidents is the proximate cause. Therefore, when the passenger of the car is thrown out of the car after the traffic accident occurs, and collides with other objects, resulting in personal injury or death, because the collision is a reasonable continuity of the risks in the vehicle, it should be determined that the victim's personal injury or death is directly caused by the risks on the vehicle, and the identity of the victim still belongs to the person on the vehicle. In the case of damage caused by multiple causes intermittently, although the occurrence of various causes is sequential, there is no causal relationship between them or the causal relationship is broken. Aftercauses are neither a reasonable succession of antecedents nor the result of a natural extension of antecedents. If the cause intervenes and breaks the original chain of causation between an event and the damage, and independently plays a decisive role in the outcome of the damage, then the cause before it is replaced by the cause of the new intervention. Therefore, when the passenger of the car is thrown out of the car after the traffic accident occurs, and the personal injury or death is caused by the collision or crushing of the car, at this time, it is the risk outside the car that plays a decisive role in the victim's personal injury or injury, and it is no longer the risk inside the car, and it can be determined that his identity has been transformed from the passenger of the car to a third party.

Second, from the perspective of time, taking the starting point or end point of the accident as the criterion for determining the identity of the victim does not conform to the procedural characteristics of the occurrence of damage. Article 3 of the Regulations on Compulsory Insurance of Motor Vehicle Traffic Accident Liability stipulates that the compulsory insurance of motor vehicle traffic accident liability as used in these Regulations refers to the compulsory liability insurance in which the insurance company compensates within the liability limit for the personal injury or death or property loss caused by the insured motor vehicle and the victim other than the insured person or the insured caused by a road traffic accident. Article 3 of the "Chinese People's Property and Casualty Insurance Co., Ltd. Motor Vehicle Third Party Liability Insurance Clause" stipulates that the third party in this insurance contract refers to the person who suffers personal injury or death and property damage due to an accident of the insured motor vehicle, but does not include the policyholder, the insured, the insurer and the personnel on the insured motor vehicle at the time of the insured accident. In the above-mentioned provisions, the terms "occurrence of road traffic accidents" and "occurrence of accidents" are used in the time limit of whether a third party in the compulsory traffic insurance and commercial insurance constitutes a third party in the compulsory traffic insurance and commercial insurance, and the occurrence of a road traffic accident or accident is a dynamic process, rather than a specific point in time. It is not in line with the dynamic development process of the accident to judge whether the victim belongs to the person of the vehicle or a third party only based on the starting point or end point of the road traffic accident or accident.

Third, from a spatial point of view, whether the damage caused by the accident occurred inside or outside the vehicle as the criterion for determining the identity of the victim cannot cover the various situations in which the victim's spatial position changes during the accident occur. The whole process of the accident was in the car, and the damage also occurred in the car, of course, it should be determined that the person in the car should be identified; The whole process of the accident occurred outside the vehicle, and the damage result also occurred outside the vehicle, so it should of course be recognized as a third party. However, disputes will arise as to whether the person in the car or a third party is the person in the car or a third party who was outside the car at the beginning of the accident and was outside the car at the time of the accident, or who was outside the car at the beginning of the accident and was in the car at the end of the accident.

[Source of opinion]: Jiangxi Provincial High People's Court Trial Supervision Division Research Group, "Investigation of Difficult Legal Issues and Adjudication Rules in Cases of Motor Vehicle Traffic Accident Liability Disputes Involving Three Insurances"

52. Second Civil Division of Shandong High Court: How to determine the "third party" and "occupant personnel" in the commercial insurance of third-party liability of motor vehicles?

Answer: It 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 "occupant person" in the vehicle personnel liability insurance refers to the person who is in or on the body of the insured vehicle at the moment of the accident. To determine whether the person injured by an accident involving the insured vehicle is a third party or a person on board, the spatial position of the victim and the insured vehicle at a specific point in time when the accident occurred and was injured should be used as the main basis. If the person in the vehicle is injured or injured due to being thrown out of the vehicle at the time of the accident, it shall be deemed to be a person on the vehicle. If the injured or injured person is caused by being thrown out of the car and then collided with or run over by the insured vehicle, unless otherwise agreed in the contract, it shall be deemed to be a third party. If the occupants of the vehicle have gotten out of the vehicle before the accident, and are later injured or injured due to the collision or crushing of the insured vehicle, they shall also be deemed to be a third party. However, if there is evidence to prove that the accident was caused by the fault of the occupants of the vehicle, and the insurer claims that it does not belong to a third party, the people's court shall uphold it.

Source: Answers to Several Questions Concerning the Trial of Insurance Contract Dispute Cases by the Second Civil Trial Division of the Higher People's Court of Shandong Province (December 31, 2019)

53. Adjudication Rules for the Determination of "Third Party" in Motor Vehicle Traffic Accident Cases -- Zhu, Ge and others v. Ping An Property & Casualty Insurance Co., Ltd. Quanjiao Branch Company of China Motor Vehicle Traffic Accident Liability Dispute

[Summary of the trial]:

In a motor vehicle traffic accident case, if no other person controls the insured motor vehicle, the driver of the motor vehicle is the insured of the vehicle, and he cannot be identified as a "third party" of the vehicle, regardless of whether he is outside the vehicle or not.

The effective judgment of the court held that Article 3 of the Regulations on Compulsory Insurance of Motor Vehicle Traffic Accident Liability stipulates that: "The compulsory insurance of motor vehicle traffic accident liability referred to in these Regulations refers to the compulsory liability insurance in which the insurance company compensates within the liability limit for the personal injury or death and property damage of the victim other than the person and the insured caused by the road traffic accident of the insured motor vehicle." "Compulsory motor vehicle traffic accident liability insurance (hereinafter referred to as compulsory traffic insurance) and motor vehicle third party liability insurance (hereinafter referred to as commercial third party insurance) are both liability insurance. According to the fourth paragraph of Article 65 of the Insurance Law of the People's Republic of China, liability insurance refers to insurance with the liability of the insured to a third party in accordance with the law as the subject matter of insurance. The insurance company that underwrites the compulsory liability insurance and the commercial third-party insurance is based on the legal provisions and the insurance contract relationship, and the insured bears the vicarious obligation to the third party in accordance with the law. If there is no tort legal relationship that is the basis of the liability insurance accident, then there is no applicable premise for liability insurance, and the insurance company's vicarious obligation to compensate naturally does not exist. In this traffic accident, Ge Mousheng is not only the victim, but also the person who bears all the responsibility for the accident, and Ge Mousheng caused damage to himself due to his own actions. At the same time, Ge Mousheng is also the insured of Anhui MLG726 small car compulsory insurance and commercial third party insurance. Therefore, there is no fact of infringement by the insured against a third party in this case, and there is no premise for compensation based on compulsory traffic insurance and commercial third party insurance. Ge Mouchang, Gao Moulan, Zhu Mou, Ge Mouping, and Ge Mouhao asserted that Ping An Property Insurance Quanjiao Branch Company should bear the liability for compensation within the scope of compulsory traffic insurance and commercial insurance, which lacked factual and legal basis and was not supported by this court. The judgment of the court of first instance was improper, and this court corrected it.

【Case Analysis】:

The handling of motor vehicle traffic accident liability disputes mostly involves the compensation of compulsory traffic insurance and commercial third party insurance, and the first thing that needs to be solved in the compensation of compulsory traffic insurance and commercial third party insurance is the identification of the "third party". In judicial practice, there have always been different understandings of which victims of traffic accidents can be included in the scope of "third parties" due to the complexity of the actual situation. Due to different understandings, local courts also lack clear standards for the handling of specific cases, and different handling methods are directly related to whether the victim or his close relatives can obtain insurance compensation, so it is necessary to discuss this issue.

1. Sorting out relevant legal provisions

1. Regarding the scope of "third party" in compulsory liability insurance.

Article 3 of the Regulations on Compulsory Traffic Insurance stipulates that: "The compulsory liability insurance for motor vehicle traffic accidents referred to in these Regulations refers to the compulsory liability insurance in which the insurance company compensates for the personal injury or death and property damage caused by the insured motor vehicle in a road traffic accident other than the person or the insured, within the liability limit." Based on this, it can be made clear that the "third party" in the compulsory traffic insurance refers to the victim other than the person in the vehicle and the insured. With regard to the insured, Article 42 (2) of the Regulations clearly refers to "the insured and the legal driver permitted by him".

2. Regarding the scope of "third party" in commercial third-party insurance.

According to Article 13 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Cases of Compensation for Damages in Road Traffic Accidents and Article 1213 of the Civil Code, commercial third-party insurance shall be compensated in accordance with the provisions of the insurance contract. Article 3 of the commercial third-party insurance clause (national unified model clause) reads: "The third party in this insurance contract refers to the person who suffers personal injury or death or property damage due to an accident of the insured motor vehicle, but does not include the persons on board the insured motor vehicle and the insured. At the same time, Article 4 of the insurance clause clarifies the persons on the vehicle, "refers to the persons in or on the body of the insured motor vehicle at the moment of the accident, including the persons who are getting on and off the vehicle." ”

It can be seen that in the mainland, whether it is compulsory traffic insurance or commercial insurance, the insurer and the person on the vehicle (vehicle) are excluded from the scope of "third party".

II. Relevant Special Circumstances and Adjudication Rules

Although the above-mentioned legal provisions and the terms of the insurance contract are used as the basis for adjudication, there are still some special circumstances in judicial practice, and it is quite controversial to determine whether the victim is a "third party", and in addition to the circumstances of this case, it is also common and typical for the driver and occupant of a motor vehicle to fall out of the car during a traffic accident and then be collided with or run over by the car and suffer damage.

In order to clarify the adjudication thinking for determining a "third party" under special circumstances, the following issues should first be clarified:

(1) Identification of the insured.

Whether it is compulsory traffic insurance or commercial third-party insurance, the insurance contract contains the information of the insured, which is generally the policyholder. Article 42 of the Compulsory Traffic Insurance Regulations also clarifies that the insured refers to the insured and the legal driver allowed by him. At the same time, Article 14 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Cases of Compensation for Damages in Road Traffic Accidents stipulates that: "If the insured suffers damage due to the driving of a motor vehicle permitted by the policyholder, and the party requests the insurance company that underwrites the compulsory traffic insurance to compensate within the limit of liability, the people's court shall support it, unless the insured is a person on the vehicle." According to this provision, the policyholder can be included in the scope of "third party" of compulsory traffic insurance in this case. There seems to be a conflict between these two provisions, and how to interpret them involves the identification of the insured. The design of the mainland's compulsory traffic insurance system is based on motor vehicles, not drivers, and the same is true for commercial third-party insurance. Therefore, there may be situations where the policyholder and the driver of the insured motor vehicle are not the same person, and Article 42 of the Regulations on Compulsory Traffic Insurance is only a general provision on the scope of the insured, and it is impossible for the two to become the insured at the same time. It can be seen that when it comes to a specific traffic accident, the insured is the driver of the insured motor vehicle, the actual controller and risk bearer of the insured motor vehicle, and its identity will not change due to the temporary change of physical location when no other person controls the motor vehicle.

(2) Identification of the occupants of the vehicle.

There is no clear definition of what constitutes a person on board the vehicle. Although the insurance clause of commercial third-party insurance stipulates that "at the moment of an accident, the persons in or on the body of the insured motor vehicle, including the persons who are getting on and off the vehicle", there is inevitably ambiguity in the understanding of what is the moment of the accident. On the question of whether the person in the car can be transformed into a "third party" when the person in the car is thrown out of the car at the time of the accident, one view is that the "third party" and the "person in the car" are not permanent and fixed identities, and they can be transformed due to changes in specific time and space conditions; Another point of view is that the identities of "people on the car" and "people outside the car" are relatively fixed, and the people on the car are separated from the body of the car because of the impact of traffic accidents and other reasons, so there is no problem of transforming into a "third party". The author leans towards the first point of view.

First, to determine whether the victim is a "third party" of the vehicle, the time of the occurrence of the damage should be the basis. Traffic accidents generally have a continuous process, although the process is long and short, but in this process, the people in the car have the temporal and spatial conditions to transform into people outside the vehicle. Although the victim who was originally a person in the car was separated from the body of the car due to an accident or other reasons, after leaving the body of the car, he was no longer a person on the car, but was located outside the body of the car, and if he was hit or crushed by the car and suffered damage, he or she belonged to the "third party" of the car. Under the circumstance that it cannot be ruled out that there is no causal relationship between the victim's damage and the subsequent collision or crushing by the vehicle, from the perspective of fully protecting the interests of the victim and embodying the risk dispersion function of insurance, it should be determined that it falls within the scope of compensation for the compulsory traffic insurance and commercial insurance of the vehicle.

Second, it is a common practice and trend to examine the international legislation and include the passengers of the car in the scope of compulsory traffic insurance compensation. The current laws of the mainland exclude "the vehicle personnel" from the scope of compulsory traffic insurance compensation, which is based on the comprehensive consideration of the current economic and social development status of the mainland. The compulsory traffic insurance system places more emphasis on its functions of basic protection and social stability, and attaches more importance to the compensation of the victim's losses, while the terms of the commercial third-party insurance are the standard terms provided by the insurance company, so for such special circumstances where there is controversy, an interpretation should be favorable to the victim and the insured.

(3) The concept and positioning of liability insurance.

Compulsory traffic insurance and commercial insurance are both liability insurance. According to the fourth paragraph of Article 65 of the Insurance Law, liability insurance refers to insurance with the insured's liability for compensation to a third party as the subject matter of insurance. Therefore, the insurance company that underwrites compulsory liability insurance and commercial third-party insurance is based on the legal provisions and the insurance contract relationship, and bears the liability for compensation on behalf of the insured for the damage caused by the insured's tortious act against a third party. The insurance company is not an infringer, and the reason why it is included in the handling of motor vehicle traffic accident liability disputes is based on the contractual relationship of liability insurance, and the insurance company bears not tort liability, but vicarious liability. Therefore, the application of compulsory traffic insurance and commercial third-party insurance must be premised on the establishment of a tortious legal relationship between the insured and the third party as the basis of the liability insurance accident. According to the basic principles of tort law, oneself cannot be one's own tortfeasor, and the victim cannot be identified as a "third party" if the infringer and the victim are mixed. Therefore, in order to protect the interests of the victims, we should not unilaterally ignore the legal nature of compulsory traffic insurance and commercial third-party insurance as liability insurance and the position of insurance companies in traffic accident cases, and arbitrarily expand the scope of "third party" in compulsory traffic insurance and even commercial third-party insurance.

If the above issues are clarified, the adjudication thinking of the above two common special circumstances will be relatively clear.

In the first case, although Articles 3 and 21 of the Regulations on Compulsory Traffic Insurance both state that "the insured motor vehicle is involved in a road traffic accident and causes personal injury or death or property damage to the victim other than the vehicle personnel and the insured", the motor vehicle, as an object, is the object of civil legal relations, and it cannot become an infringer in itself, and only the user or controller of the motor vehicle may become an infringer. Therefore, after Ge Mousheng, the driver of the motor vehicle in the case, got out of the car, the actual controller and risk bearer of the motor vehicle was still Ge Mousheng when no one else controlled the motor vehicle, and the identity of the actual driver did not change due to the change of physical location. At this time, although Ge Mousheng was not a person in the car, he still belonged to the insured, so he could not become the "third party" of the car.

In the second case, if the driver of the motor vehicle is thrown out of the car during a traffic accident and is later hit or run over by the car and suffers damage, as mentioned above, the driver is still the insured of the car and therefore cannot become a "third party" of the car; However, if the passenger of the motor vehicle is already outside the car when he is collided with or run over by the car, he belongs to the "third party" at this time, and the losses suffered by him fall within the scope of compensation of the compulsory traffic insurance and commercial third-party insurance of the vehicle.

Through the analysis of the above two common special circumstances, the following adjudication rules can be determined for the determination of "third party" in motor vehicle traffic accident cases:

(1) The occupants of the insured motor vehicle cannot be identified as the "third party" of the vehicle;

(2) In the absence of another person controlling the insured motor vehicle, the driver of the motor vehicle is the insured of the vehicle, and he cannot be identified as a "third party" of the vehicle regardless of whether he is outside the vehicle or not;

(3) If the passenger of the insured motor vehicle is injured by the vehicle after being separated from the body of the vehicle and is collided with or crushed by the vehicle, it may be determined that the passenger of the insured motor vehicle is a "third party" of the vehicle;

(4) If the traffic accident is intentionally caused by the victim, the victim cannot be identified as a "third party".

3. Refer to the issues that should be paid attention to when applying this case

The "third party", especially the "third party" in compulsory liability insurance, is not a concept that needs to be explained and clarified in legal theory, but is differentiated according to a country's values, policy orientation, legal system, etc. The adjudication rules on the determination of "third party" in this case and the annotations are based on the current legal provisions and judicial interpretations. More special circumstances may be encountered in judicial practice. For example, the owner of the insured motor vehicle knows that the braking system of the motor vehicle is defective, and hands over the motor vehicle to be driven by another person, and then the motor vehicle slips down the slope due to a problem with the braking system, resulting in the driver getting out of the car being run over and suffering damage. At this time, although the motor vehicle is actually controlled by the driver, the defect of the motor vehicle itself is an important cause or even the only cause of the accident. In this case, the owner of the insured motor vehicle constitutes a tort against the driver, is there a possibility that the driver will be transformed into a "third party"? For example, in the above circumstances, if the motor vehicle causes damage to the owner of the motor vehicle (who is also the policyholder) located outside the vehicle, can the policyholder still be recognized as a "third party"? Such issues may need to be further clarified by legal provisions and judicial interpretations.

Case No.: :(2020) Anhui 11 Min Zhong No. 795

Case source: Intermediate People's Court of Chuzhou City, Anhui Province

54. To determine whether the person injured by an accident in the insured vehicle is a "third party" or a "person in the vehicle", it must be based on whether the person was on the insured vehicle at a specific time at the time of the accident

[Summary of the trial]:

To determine whether a person injured by an accident involving an insured vehicle is a "third party" or a "person on board", it must be based on whether the person was on the insured vehicle at that specific time at the time of the accident, and is a "person on the vehicle" and a "third party" under the vehicle. A person who is injured by an accident involving an insured vehicle is a "third party" if he or she was an occupant of the insured vehicle before the accident occurred and was already under the insured vehicle at the time of the accident. As to what caused the person to be under the insured vehicle at the time of the accident, it does not affect his status as a "third party".

Source: Gazette of the Supreme People's Court, No. 7, 2008 (No. 141)

55. The person on the car who falls from the car is not converted into a third party

[Summary of the trial]:

Compulsory traffic insurance and third-party liability insurance are applicable to the situation where the insured motor vehicle has a road traffic accident that causes personal injury or death or property damage to the victim other than the person in the vehicle and the insured. The identities of the people in the car and the third party are relatively fixed, and in this case, Wang was injured after falling from the compartment of the vehicle that caused the accident, which was a member of the car and did not meet the requirements of compulsory traffic insurance and third-party liability insurance.

[Case Number] :(2021) Zhe 10 Min Zhong No. 618

56. A driver who is not in the driving state and has left the vehicle body at the time of the accident shall be deemed to have been transformed into a "third party"

[Summary of the trial]:

The focus of the dispute in this case is: whether the victim Yang was a "person in the car" or a "third party" in the accident in this case. First of all, in this case, the victim Yang had already completed the process of driving and using the motor vehicle at the time of the accident, and in the process of getting out of the car and carrying out other operations after completing the driving, the traffic accident of the wooden case occurred, and he had been converted into a third party in time and space, and was no longer a person in the vehicle. Second, the vehicle involved in the case was taxied forward after Yang correctly operated the parking and got out of the car, causing Yang to die outside the vehicle, and he was already a third party relative to the vehicle involved in the case. Finally, the owner of the vehicle involved in the case, Mr. Huang, had insured the vehicle involved in the case with compulsory traffic insurance and commercial third-party insurance, and the losses incurred by the third party caused by the vehicle involved in the case should fall within the scope of compensation for the compulsory traffic insurance and commercial third-party insurance, so the court of first instance ruled that it was not improper for the insurance Maoming Company to bear the insurance liability of the third-party liability insurance for the losses caused by the accident in this case, and this court upheld it.

Case Number: :(2020) Yue 09 Min Zhong No. 2774

57. If a passenger falls down and dies when the bus starts, is it a "person on board" or a "third party"?

[Summary of the trial]:

Regarding whether Tan was transformed from a "person in the car" to a "third party". A motor vehicle is a means of transportation, and it is impossible for anyone to be permanently placed on a motor vehicle, so the "third party" and the "person in the vehicle" in the traffic accident disputed by the parties are not permanent and fixed identities, and can only be judged on the basis of whether they are inside (outside) the car under the specific time conditions at the time of the traffic accident, and they are the "persons on the car" and the "third party" under the car.

The court held that citizens who infringe on the personal rights of others due to their fault shall bear civil liability. Where a citizen's bodily injury is infringed upon, compensation shall be made for medical expenses, loss of income due to lost work, and other expenses. The defendant, an insurance company, should compensate the plaintiff for its losses within the limits of compulsory insurance liability. The shortfall shall be compensated by the third party liability insurance of the insurance company.

First, the case was a unilateral accident, the defendant Xu was driving a large ordinary passenger car, Tan got out of the car through the back door, and the driver Xu drove while closing the car door, causing Tan to fall down and be crushed by the rear wheel of the car and injured, and there was a time lag from Tan getting out of the car to being run over by the rear wheel and being injured, that is, he was the person on board of the insured vehicle before the time node of the traffic accident, and he was already outside the car at the time of the accident (i.e., when the damage occurred), therefore, the victim of the case, Tan, had been transformed from a "person on the car" to a "third party". It shall be identified as a "third party".

Second, the legislative purpose of the Regulations on Compulsory Insurance of Motor Vehicle Traffic Accident Liability is to ensure that a "third party" can obtain corresponding relief from the insurer in a timely manner when a traffic accident is damaged, and it is a contract concluded for the benefit of an unspecified third party. Therefore, when there is a dispute over the definition of "vehicle personnel" and "third party", the determination should be made in accordance with the law based on the nature of compulsory traffic insurance and the concept of fairness that is conducive to the victim obtaining adequate compensation. In this case, the victim Tan got out of the car and fell down and was crushed by the rear wheel of the car and died, and the dangerous consequences of this act were not under his control, and it was more in line with the above-mentioned legislative purpose to determine that he was a "third party" so that his family could obtain basic economic security.

Third, according to Article 30 of the Insurance Law of the People's Republic of China, in the event of a dispute between the parties on the understanding of the insurance clause, an interpretation in favor of the insured shall be made. Therefore, the victim of the case, Tan, died due to a traffic accident, and belonged to the "third party" in the compulsory traffic insurance and commercial third-party liability insurance purchased by the insured vehicle, and the insurance company should bear the liability for compensation in the compulsory traffic insurance and commercial third-party liability insurance purchased by the vehicle, rather than within the scope of the passenger carrier's liability insurance.

58. When the driver stops the vehicle on the side of the road and gets out of the car to check, if the vehicle rolls and causes his death, should the insurance company bear the liability for compensation under the compulsory traffic insurance and the commercial insurance? —Ni Mougong, Xu Mouzhi, Yu Mouyan et al. v. People's Property Insurance Weihai Branch Property Insurance Property Insurance Contract Dispute Case

[Summary of the trial]:

The focus of the retrial review of this case was whether it was appropriate for the original trial to compensate the respondent for the economic losses of the respondent within the compensation limit of the compulsory traffic insurance and the commercial third party insurance.

According to the existing evidence in this case and the facts ascertained in the original review, Ni XX did not actually drive the vehicle at the time of the accident in this case, the insured vehicle was parked, and after Ni XX got out of the car, he lost the actual control ability of the vehicle, and the insured vehicle slipped and caused Ni XX's death. In accordance with the relevant provisions of the Road Traffic Safety Law and the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Cases of Compensation for Damages in Road Traffic Accidents, the court of first instance determined that Ni Moumou belonged to the "third party" in this accident. It was not improper to award the Weihai Branch to compensate the respondent for the economic losses within the limits of the compulsory traffic insurance and the commercial third party insurance.

Case Number: :(2020) Lu 10 Min Zhong No. 2568 (2021) Lu Min Shen No. 2933

59. Zheng Moubao v. Xu Mouliang and People's Property Insurance Changxing Branch Company in a dispute over compensation for personal injuries in a road traffic accident

[Summary of the trial]:

I. According to the provisions of the motor vehicle insurance contract, the "third party" in the motor vehicle third-party liability insurance refers to the victim under the insured vehicle who suffers personal injury or property damage due to an accident of the insured vehicle in addition to the policyholder, the insured and the insurer: the "person on the vehicle" in the vehicle liability insurance refers to the person who is on the insured vehicle at the time of the accident. Accordingly. Whether a person injured in an accident involving an insured vehicle is a "third party" or a "person on board" must be determined by whether the person was present in the insured vehicle at that specific time at the time of the accident. In the car, it is the "person on the car", and under the car, it is the "third party".

II. Since a motor vehicle is a means of transportation, it is impossible for anyone to permanently be on a motor vehicle, so the "third party" and "person on the vehicle" involved in the motor vehicle insurance contract are temporary identities under specific time and space conditions, that is, the "third party" and "person on the vehicle" are not permanent and fixed identities, and they can be transformed due to changes in specific time and space conditions. A person who is injured by an accident involving an insured vehicle is a "third party" if he or she was an occupant of the insured vehicle before the accident occurred and was already under the insured vehicle at the time of the accident. As to what caused the person to be under the insured vehicle at the time of the accident, it does not affect his status as a "third party".

Source of the case: Gazette of the Supreme People's Court, No. 07, 2008

60. Should the insurance company compensate for avoiding the anonymous person and throwing the passenger out of the car?

[Summary of the trial]:

According to Article 21 of the Regulations on Compulsory Insurance of Motor Vehicle Traffic Accident Liability, if a traffic accident occurs in a motor vehicle and causes personal injury or death or property damage to the victim other than the vehicle personnel and the insured, the insurance company shall compensate within the liability limit of the compulsory traffic insurance. In this case, the criterion for determining whether the victim Liu is a "third party" or a "person in the car" should be based on whether the person was in the insured vehicle at the specific time when the traffic accident occurred. Accordingly, the court organized mediation between the two parties in combination with the demands of the parties, and the insurance company agreed to pay 220,000 yuan in compensation to the victim's family within the scope of compulsory traffic insurance.

The "personnel in the vehicle" referred to in the Regulations on Compulsory Traffic Insurance will change due to specific time and space conditions, and the court's comprehensive determination that Liu has been transformed from a person on the vehicle to a "third party" outside the vehicle is in line with the original intention of the establishment of compulsory traffic insurance, which is conducive to protecting the rights and interests of the victim's relatives.

61. The compulsory traffic insurance of this car does not compensate for the loss of personnel on board.

[Summary of the trial]:

The effective judgment held that in accordance with Article 3 of the Regulations on Compulsory Insurance of Motor Vehicle Traffic Accident Liability, "the compulsory insurance of motor vehicle traffic accident liability as used in these Regulations refers to the compulsory liability insurance in which the insurance company compensates within the liability limit for the personal injury or death or property damage caused by the insured motor vehicle and the victim other than the insured caused by a road traffic accident", neither the vehicle personnel nor the insured can become the compensation object of the compulsory vehicle traffic insurance.

The "third party" of compulsory motor vehicle traffic insurance and commercial third-party liability insurance refers to the person who suffers personal injury or death or property damage due to an accident of the insured motor vehicle, but does not include the persons on board the insured motor vehicle and the insured; The "occupant person" refers to the person who is in or on the body of the insured motor vehicle at the moment of the accident, including the person who is getting on and off the vehicle. Through this case, the third party and the person on the vehicle are clearly defined, the misunderstanding is eliminated, and it is further clarified that the object of compensation of the third party liability insurance of the motor vehicle is the victim (i.e., the third party) other than the person of the vehicle and the insured, and the person of the vehicle and the insured are not liable for compensation.

62. Case of a dispute over liability for a motor vehicle road traffic accident between Liang Moumou et al. and Fu Mouyue and Hualian Property Insurance Huaihua Central Branch

[Summary of the trial]:

The victim in this case, Liang Mouping, died due to a traffic accident and is the subject of the "third party" in the compulsory traffic insurance and commercial third-party liability insurance purchased by the insured vehicle, and the Huaihua Branch of China United Property Insurance Company shall bear the liability for compensation in the compulsory traffic insurance and commercial third-party liability insurance purchased by the vehicle, for the following reasons:

First, according to Article 76 of the Road Traffic Safety Law and Article 3 of the Regulations on Compulsory Insurance of Motor Vehicle Traffic Accident Liability, the compulsory third-party liability insurance for road traffic accidents, i.e., compulsory traffic insurance, pays compensation to "third parties" other than "vehicle personnel" and "insureds" who are injured in road traffic accidents. A motor vehicle is a means of transportation, and it is impossible for anyone to be permanently placed on a motor vehicle, so the "third party" and the "person in the vehicle" in the traffic accident disputed by the parties are not permanent and fixed identities, and can only be judged on the basis of whether they are inside (outside) the car under the specific time conditions at the time of the traffic accident, and they are the "persons on the car" and the "third party" under the car. COMBINED WITH THE FACTS ASCERTAINED IN THIS CASE, THIS CASE IS A UNILATERAL ACCIDENT, THE VEHICLE DRIVEN BY FU MOUYUE HEAVY SEMI-TRAILER TRACTOR AT A SPEED OF 48-50KM/H ON THE SHANGHAI-KUNMING EXPRESSWAY NORMAL DRIVING, THE VICTIM LIANG MOUPING AND FU MOUYUE RIDING IN THE PASSENGER CAB DUE TO TRIVIAL DISPUTES, GOT OFF THE CAR SHORTLY AFTER THE VEHICLE STARTED DURING THE DRIVING PROCESS, DUE TO THE INERTIA OF THE VEHICLE'S MOVEMENT, DID NOT STAND FIRM AFTER GETTING OUT OF THE CAR AND FELL TO THE GROUND, WAS RUN OVER BY THE REAR WHEEL OF THE CAR AND DIED ON THE SPOT, FROM THE SCENE MAP OF THE TRAFFIC POLICE DEPARTMENT, FROM THE RIGHT DOOR OF THE CAR TO THE RIGHT REAR WHEEL THERE IS A DISTANCE OF ABOUT 8 METERS, There is a time lag between Liang Mouping getting out of the car and being crushed by the rear wheel and dying, that is, the person who was on board the insured vehicle before the time node of the traffic accident occurred, and was already outside the car at the time of the accident (i.e., when the damage occurred), therefore, the victim in this case, Liang Mouping, has been transformed from a "person in the car" to a "third party", and should be determined to be a "third party".

Second, the legislative purpose of the Regulations on Compulsory Insurance of Motor Vehicle Traffic Accident Liability is to ensure that a "third party" can obtain corresponding relief from the insurer in a timely manner when a traffic accident is damaged, and it is a contract concluded for the benefit of an unspecified third party. Therefore, when there is a dispute over the definition of "vehicle personnel" and "third party", the determination should be made in accordance with the law based on the nature of compulsory traffic insurance and the concept of fairness that is conducive to the victim obtaining adequate compensation. In light of this case, the victim Liang Mouping got out of the car and fell down and ran over his head on the rear wheel of the car to death, and the dangerous consequences of this act were not under his control, and it was more in line with the above-mentioned legislative purpose to determine that he was a "third party" so that his family could obtain basic economic security.

Third, according to Article 30 of the Insurance Law, "if there is a dispute between the insurer and the policyholder, the insured or the beneficiary over the terms of the insurance contract concluded by the standard terms provided by the insurer, it shall be interpreted in accordance with the common understanding." If there are two or more interpretations of the contract clause, the people's court or arbitration institution shall make an interpretation in favor of the insured and the beneficiary", and in the event of a dispute between the parties on the interpretation of the insurance clause, an interpretation shall be made in favor of the insured.

Case No.: :(2018) Xiang Min Zai No. 279

Transferred from the same judgment rule for similar cases