1、 Case Introduction

The plaintiff and defendant are neighbors and friends. On March 26, 2006, the plaintiff Zhang took a Zhejiang J-3B059 Toyota Cruiser off-road vehicle driven by the defendant Zhang from Taizhou to Shanghai. The vehicle collided with a guardrail 64 kilometers in the direction of Shangyu on the Shangsan Expressway and overturned, causing severe injuries to the plaintiff Zhang's brain, liver, spleen and other important organs, The Today Morning Post reported on the accident under the headline 'Electronic Dog Accompanying Self indulgence, Cruiser Crashing'. On May 10, 2006, the Shaoxing Branch of the Highway Traffic Police Corps issued the Zhejiang Public Gao Shao San Ren (2006) No. 30008 accident determination letter, which determined that the defendant Zhang was fully responsible for the accident and the plaintiff Zhang was not responsible for the accident. After being injured, plaintiff Zhang was immediately sent to Xinchang People's Hospital for emergency treatment. Due to his serious condition, plaintiff Zhang was transferred to Zhejiang First People's Hospital, Shanghai Dongfang Hepatobiliary Surgery Hospital, Shanghai Changhai Hospital, and Taizhou Central Hospital for treatment. As of December 29, 2006, he spent a total of 541411.68 yuan on medical expenses. During this period, the defendant only paid 200000 yuan in medical expenses. Although the plaintiff's injuries have gradually stabilized, they are still unable to take care of themselves and require further surgical treatment. Due to the economic difficulties of the plaintiff's family, they were unable to pay a huge amount of medical expenses, so the plaintiff was temporarily unable to undergo surgical treatment. Later, the plaintiff repeatedly urged the defendant to pay other related expenses in a timely manner, but the defendant refused. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit with the court on December 29, 2006 regarding the medical expenses that had already been incurred. After other losses and injuries stabilized, the plaintiff filed another lawsuit.

2、 Case handling process

On December 26, 2006, the handling lawyer of this case received the family of the plaintiff Zhang, and had a detailed understanding of the relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant, the reasons for the plaintiff's departure to Shanghai, the cause and process of the accident, fault liability, the plaintiff's medical treatment, and the current family economic situation of the plaintiff and the defendant. The family members of the parties have made three demands to the lawyer: 1. Require the defendant to fully pay the medical expenses; 2. Conduct an investigation into the defendant's existing assets, and if conditions permit, take property preservation measures; 3. Due to economic difficulties, we hope to resolve this case as soon as possible. After analyzing the circumstances of this case, the handling lawyer gave four response opinions to the family members of the parties: 1. Due to the difficulties faced by the plaintiff's family after paying a huge amount of medical fees, they can apply to the court for a delay in payment of litigation fees; 2. It is difficult to require the defendant to pay the full amount of the drug fee. If a lawsuit is filed, the defendant will inevitably propose to review the drug fee, and according to convention, the drug fee will always be more or less excluded; 3. The particularity of this case is that it is easy to ride together, and the plaintiff benefits. The court may consider this factor; 4. The handling time should consider the speed of drug fee review. The handling lawyer accepted the commission of the client's family on the same day and represented the first instance of this case. The handling lawyer shall inform the family members of the parties and provide proof of income difficulties to the street or village committee where they are located. On December 27, 2006, the handling lawyer, based on the information provided by the parties, inquired about relevant files with the Taizhou Vehicle Management Office and the Road and Bridge Industry and Commerce Administration Department, and found that the defendant had a luxury sedan worth 2 million yuan and a start-up company. On December 29, 2006, this case officially filed a civil lawsuit with the People's Court of Luqiao District. Due to the economic difficulties of the parties involved, the court agreed to postpone the plaintiff's payment of 2/3 of the litigation fees. After filing the case, the handling lawyer provided a written report to the presiding judge regarding the plaintiff's inability to pay for continued treatment due to financial difficulties, hoping to hear the case in a timely manner. In early January 2007, the court served a summons on the parties, and the case was scheduled to be heard on February 7, 2007. In mid January 2007, the defendant's lawyer applied to the court to review the plaintiff's drug fee of 541411.68 yuan. Due to the plaintiff's continuous recuperation in Linhai after discharge, after consultation between the handling lawyer and the opposing lawyer, both parties agreed to place the drug fee review in Linhai Judicial Appraisal Institute for appraisal. The handling lawyer immediately contacted the plaintiff's family members, informed them of the name, address, contact information, appraisers, etc. of the appraisal institution, and requested that the family members promptly take the plaintiff to the appraisal institution to state their condition and medical treatment; The handling lawyer also contacted the appraisers and informed them of the trial time, hoping to review the drug fees as soon as possible. The appraisers expressed sympathy for the plaintiff and promised not to affect the trial time. On February 6, 2007, after the diligent work of the appraisers, the conclusion of the drug fee review in this case was: the plaintiff's medical fee was 541411.68 yuan, of which the unreasonable use of drugs was 4384.75 yuan. At 8:50 am on February 7, 2007, the case was promptly heard at the Road and Bridge Court.

3、 Focus of controversy

After a court investigation, the focus of the dispute in this case is 1. What is the nature of this case? Is it the defendant who specifically helped to send the plaintiff to Shanghai, and what about the labor relationship? Or did the plaintiff take the defendant's ride with good intentions? 2. What is the fault liability in this case? Is the defendant only partially responsible for the helper relationship as stated by the defendant? Can the accident determination by the traffic police department serve as the basis for determining fault liability in this case? In addition, is there any fault with the plaintiff, such as wearing a seat belt? In response to the first focus, the defendant applied for three witnesses to appear in court to prove that the defendant specifically helped drive the plaintiff to Shanghai for work. The handling lawyer conducted detailed inquiries on each of these three witnesses. All three witnesses' testimony was hearsay testimony, and there were multiple contradictions between their testimonies. The court did not accept the witness's testimony. Therefore, the nature of this case is to use good intentions together. Regarding the second focus, the defendant believes that the traffic police department's determination of accident liability is inaccurate, and believes that the plaintiff was thrown out of the car during the accident, resulting in the plaintiff not wearing a seat belt before the accident and violating safety regulations. The plaintiff should bear corresponding responsibility; The handling lawyer raised a rebuttal that: 1. The defendant did not have any evidence to prove that the plaintiff was not wearing a seat belt at the time. 2. The plaintiff was thrown out of the car, so it cannot be considered that the plaintiff was not wearing a seat belt. 3. The plaintiff was sitting in the passenger compartment at the time, which is the highest risk position. After the trial, the presiding judge in this case also consulted the traffic police department by phone and agreed with the handling lawyer's above viewpoint.

4、 Court judgment result

On March 2, 2007, the court ruled as follows: The defendant's vehicle overturned after colliding with a guardrail on a highway, causing the plaintiff to be injured in a traffic accident, and the defendant bears full responsibility for this accident. The facts are clear, so the plaintiff's losses should be borne by the defendant in accordance with the law. In the compensation item originally informed, medical expenses should be calculated and paid based on evidence, and the unreasonable part reviewed by the forensic examination should be deducted, totaling 4384.75 yuan. The defendant argued that there was a helper relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant, and that the plaintiff did not wear a seat belt in the vehicle. The defendant only bears partial compensation responsibility, and the above arguments lack factual and legal basis, and the court will not accept them. Therefore, the defendant was sentenced to pay the plaintiff medical expenses of 506954.93 yuan (including the 200000 yuan already paid by the defendant) within ten days. The defendant appealed to the Taizhou Intermediate People's Court and the final verdict was upheld

5、 Case handling experience

The handling lawyer has handled a large number of cases of personal injury compensation in traffic accidents, but this case is unique and novel, and is still the first case. This case is a traffic accident caused by the good intentions of both passengers and the benefactor's fault. Regarding the issue of good intentions for passengers, there is currently no clear provision in Chinese law, but judicial practice generally believes that the duty of care for the right to life and health of individuals cannot be alleviated by the use of good intentions. Although a judgment was made in favor of the plaintiff in the first instance of this case, the main inspiration for the handling lawyer in this case is twofold: 1. In handling the case, the lawyer should start from the details, always consider the parties, closely monitor the case progress, contact and communicate with the handling agency and relevant departments, and timely contact the parties to inform them of the progress of the case. The case only took more than two months from filing to completion, making it the fastest traffic accident case handled by the handling lawyer, The parties involved are also quite satisfied. 2. In terms of traffic safety, the current ownership of cars in our city is quite high, but traffic accident cases remain high, and free riding among friends is quite common. Beneficial benefactors do not know that their own responsibilities will increase, and safety precautions are often overlooked. Otherwise, like in this case, friends become enemies, and the plaintiff loses their healthy body, the defendant will have to bear a huge amount of economic compensation. Faced with this situation, it is difficult for friends to refuse a ride, so the handling lawyer suggests that either the driver should enhance their duty of care to avoid accidents; Either everyone can take public buses together to avoid increasing their own obligations.