The pedestrians were hit on the ground and killed twice. How is responsibility for the two vehicles divided? How should insurance compensation be linked? In recent days, the jinan district people's court has been linked togetherTraffic accidentsLiability disputes. In this case, in which wang and sun collided with du chiu, the court concluded, in accordance with the relevant provisions, that the primary responsibility of the traffic police department was to determine the order of compensation “to be paid in advance of the risk + to be shared by the commercial three”, and finally awarded the insurance company insured for the two vehicles a total of over $1. 1 million。
According to the facts of the case, on 2 november 2024, when wang, driving the ruxxxx1 minibus, arrived at a certain intersection, when duy was walking there, the car crashed, causing damage to the vehicle, injury to duy, who fell and waited for help at the site of the accident. The mini-car ruxxxx2 of the late grandson drove here, colliding with doui, who was sitting here, causing damage to the vehicle and injuries to the road traffic. After a few days of rescue, du died. According to the traffic police, sun has the primary responsibility for the accident, wang has the secondary responsibility for the accident and doo has no responsibility for the accident. The ruxxxx1 vehicle was insured by the a. I. For a three-part commercial risk of $2 million, during which the accident occurred. The ruxxxx2 vehicle is insured at the company e. E. C. For a three-party commercial insurance policy of $3 million, during which the accident occurred. After the accident, the company a and b paid $18,000 in medical expenses for their respective actions. One of the only heirs, dou jia wang, sun chii and company b, sued the court for compensation for various damages, including medical expenses, nutritional expenses, in-patient food support, nursing expenses, death compensation, moral damages, etc。
Wang argued that all losses should be borne by the insurance company。
No defence was provided by the insurance company a。
She argued that the insurance company should bear full responsibility。
The company argued that it agreed to compensate for a reasonable and lawful loss, subject to the deduction of medical expenses already paid, and that, since the accident had been caused by two vehicles, it should first be held liable within the limits of their respective liability for greater risk exposure, in proportion to their liability。
After hearing, the court found that wang chia and sun chiang had not driven safely, in accordance with their operational norms, and that there had been a traffic accident with du chi, and that the traffic police had found that sun chi bore the primary responsibility for the accident, wang had secondary responsibility for the accident, and that du chi had not been responsible for the accident, and that this finding was in accordance with the law and was accepted by the court. The people's republic of chinaCivil codeArticle 1165 provides that “the perpetrator shall be liable for damage caused by his fault to the civil rights and interests of others. ”as a result of the fault of sun yao and wang, who were responsible for the accident, xiao du demanded that sun yao and wang compensate him for the damage caused by the traffic accident, they were legally justified and supported. In accordance with article 12213 of the civil code of the people's republic of china and article 18 of the supreme people's court interpretation of the law applicable to cases of compensation for damages in road traffic accidents, in the present case, the liability for the damage caused by the death of little duindou is borne first and foremost by the insurance company b and a, within the limits of the compulsory insurance liability of third parties to motor vehicles, and the insufficient portion is shared between sun and wang on the basis of his fault, taking into account the circumstances of the vehicles driven by both parties, the circumstances of the error and the circumstances of the case, and taking into account the relevant criteria, the court considered it appropriate that sun bear 70 per cent of the liability and wang 30 per cent of the liability. In view of the fact that the ruxxxx2 vehicle is insured by the company b for 3 million yuan in commercial tri-risk insurance, the losses of doo exceed the maximum liability limit and are to be borne by sun-yi, who is compensated by the company b, in accordance with the agreement of the insurance contract, within the limits of commercial tri-risk insurance; and in the case of the non-commercial tri-risk insurance portion, which exceeds the maximum liability limit and is not covered by sun, sun-yi is compensated by sun. In view of the fact that the ruxxxx1 vehicle is insured with the company a for 2 million dollars in commercial tri-risk insurance, the losses of doo exceed the maximum liability limit and are to be borne by wang, the company is to be compensated within the limits of commercial tri-risk insurance, as agreed in the insurance contract; and wang is to be compensated for the portion of the liability limit that exceeds the maximum liability limit and that is not covered by wang. Following a review of the costs claimed by the plaintiff, the court finally awarded compensation to the plaintiff for moral damages, death compensation within the limits of compulsory insurance for third-party liability of motor vehicles, compensation to the plaintiff for medical expenses, nutrition, hospital food assistance, nursing and death compensation, totalling over $700,000 within the limits of commercial insurance for third-party liability of motor vehicles, compensation to the plaintiff for moral damages, death compensation within the limits of compulsory insurance for third-party liability of motor vehicles, compensation to the plaintiff for medical expenses, nutritional expenses, inpatient food support, nursing expenses, death compensation, etc., and denial of the plaintiff's other claims。
According to the judge, in practice, many motor vehicles are covered both by compulsory motor vehicle insurance and commercial insurance. When damage is caused by a traffic accident, compensation is paid first by the insurers who insured the motor vehicle compulsory insurance within the limits of the liability for compulsory insurance, secondly by the insurers who insured the motor vehicle commercial insurance, in accordance with the agreement of the insurance contract, and thirdly by the infringer, where the commercial motor vehicle insurance is still insufficient. In this case, there was a fault in the act of sun yai wang and he was responsible for the accident. In the case of the plaintiffs, the losses claimed were primarily the liability of the insurers sun chia and wang, respectively, within the limits of their liability for the imposition of the liability; in the case of the insufficient portion, the remaining compensation was ultimately paid by the two insurers in proportion to sun chia and wang's respective liability, since both were covered by the commercial three-party risk and the amount of compensation was within the limits of the commercial three-party insurance。
