Lawyer Li Zhiyong represented XX Transportation Company in a traffic accident property damage compensation case.
[Lead Attorney: Li Zhiyong] On April 15, 2005, a driver of XX Transportation Company, driving a tractor, violated regulations and crashed into a transformer belonging to Shenzhen XX Bureau by the roadside. Shenzhen XX Bureau filed a lawsuit, requesting the court to order the defendant XX Transportation Company and Shenzhen XX Property Insurance Company to compensate for losses of 200,000 yuan. XX Transportation Company entrusted Attorney Li Zhiyong to respond. Through investigation, Attorney Li made thorough preparations, presenting solid evidence in court to refute the plaintiff's exaggerated claims of losses and counter the defendant Shenzhen XX Property Insurance Company's attempts to reduce liability. The court adopted Attorney Li's opinion, determining the plaintiff's actual loss to be 74,869 yuan, and ordered the defendant Shenzhen XX Property Insurance Company to compensate the plaintiff 74,869 yuan, with XX Transportation Company bearing joint and several liability. The first-instance judgment took effect according to law, and ultimately XX Transportation Company paid over 7,000 yuan to Shenzhen XX Property Insurance Company as agreed.
Civil Judgment of the Yantian District People's Court of Shenzhen City, Guangdong Province
(2006) Shenyan Famin Yichu Zi No. 173
Plaintiff Guangdong XX Company Shenzhen XX Bureau, domiciled at No. 40 XX, XX East Road, Luohu District, Shenzhen.
The person in charge, Jin XX, is the director of the bureau.
Agent: Yan XX, lawyer at Guangdong XX Law Firm.
Contact number: 1390220XXXX.
Agent Yu XX, lawyer from Guangdong XX Law Firm.
Contact number: 1 3923864XXXX.
Defendant: Shenzhen XX Transportation Co., Ltd., address: Room 7—XXX, Phase II, Southern XX Garden, Yantian District, Shenzhen.
Legal representative: Wen XX, member of the board of directors of the company.
Authorized representative: Li Zhiyong, lawyer of Guangdong Zhiming Law Firm,
Contact number: 1 300881 0667.
Authorized representative: Wang XX, employee of Shenzhen XX Transportation Co., Ltd.
Contact number: 2633XXXX.
Defendant XX Insurance Co., Ltd. Shenzhen Branch, address: XX Floor, Block A, XX Building, No. XX Luofang Road, Luohu District, Shenzhen.
Responsible person: Jiang XX, General Manager of the company.
Authorized representative: Wang XX, lawyer at Guangdong XX Law Firm,
Contact number: 138 2889XXXX.
Authorized representative: Wu XX, lawyer at Guangdong XX Law Firm.
Contact number: 1 3 7 984 3XXXX.
The plaintiff, Guangdong XX Company Shenzhen XX Bureau (hereinafter referred to as Shenzhen XX Bureau), filed a lawsuit against the defendant, Shenzhen XX Transportation Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as XX Transportation Company), and the defendant, XX Insurance Co., Ltd. Shenzhen Branch (hereinafter referred to as XX Property Insurance Company), regarding a dispute over property damage compensation from a traffic accident. After the case was accepted and registered by this court, it was processed under ordinary procedures. A public hearing was held on January 4, 2007. The plaintiff’s authorized agents, Yan XX and Yu XX, the defendant XX Transportation Company’s authorized agents, Li Zhiyong and Wang XX, and the defendant XX Property Insurance Company’s authorized agent, Wang XX, attended the proceedings. This case is now concluded.
The plaintiff, Shenzhen XX Bureau, alleged that on April 15, 2005, driver Yang XX, operating a heavy semi-trailer tractor owned by the defendant XX Transportation Company (license plate number Yue B/406XX), was traveling west to east on Shenyan Road. Upon reaching the intersection near the epidemic prevention station, the vehicle collided with four pedestrians and their four bicycles, then struck roadside greenery and a power transformer, causing damage to the plaintiff’s power transformer. The Yantian Brigade of the Shenzhen Municipal Traffic Police Detachment conducted on-site inspections and investigations, issuing a "Traffic Accident Determination" stating that driver Yang XX failed to drive safely according to operational standards, violating Article 22, Paragraph 1 of the "Road Traffic Safety Law of the People's Republic of China" (hereinafter referred to as the "Road Traffic Safety Law"), which was the fault leading to the accident, and he should bear full responsibility. This traffic accident caused severe damage to the plaintiff’s outdoor ring main unit cabinet and ring main switchgear located in Shatoujiao, Yantian District, along with SF6 gas leakage. To prevent serious safety incidents, the plaintiff immediately organized personnel for emergency repairs, resulting in direct economic losses exceeding 200,000 yuan. The defendant XX Transportation Company, as the owner of the accident vehicle, and Yang XX, who drove negligently and damaged the plaintiff’s power facilities, should bear full compensation liability for the losses caused by the accident. Accordingly, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit with this court, requesting: 1. The two defendants jointly compensate the plaintiff for the repair and emergency costs of the power supply facilities, totaling 200,000 yuan; 2. The defendants bear all litigation costs of this case.
#p##e#
The defendant XX Transportation Company responded in writing, stating that the plaintiff did not notify the defendant when removing and replacing equipment on April 18, 2005, and the replaced ring main switchgear showed no external damage, making it impossible to prove a direct link between the lack of sulfur hexafluoride gas in the switchgear and the accident. The defendant did not accept the plaintiff’s claims. During the trial, the defendant added the following supplementary defenses: 1. The evaluation report from Shenzhen XX Asset Appraisal Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as XX Asset Appraisal Company) was not accepted; 2. The defendant had purchased motor vehicle third-party liability insurance. According to Article 76 of the "Road Traffic Safety Law," when a motor vehicle accident causes personal injury or property damage, the insurance company shall compensate within the liability limit of compulsory third-party liability insurance. The plaintiff could directly sue the defendant XX Property Insurance Company, and the court should dismiss the plaintiff’s claims.
The defendant XX Property Insurance Company responded, stating: 1. Although the court added it as a defendant, the plaintiff did not make any claims against it, so it owed no liability to the plaintiff; 2. Regarding the plaintiff’s property damage facts, damaged items, and extent of damage, aside from the plaintiff’s own evidence, there was no other evidence to support them. The evaluation report from XX Asset Appraisal Company explicitly stated that it could not guarantee the accuracy and authenticity of the materials provided by the plaintiff. Therefore, without verifying the authenticity of the plaintiff’s materials, the conclusions of the evaluation report lacked a legal basis and were unreliable; 3. The evaluation report was made on November 10, 2006, a year and a half after the accident, and the originality and authenticity of the evidence had been completely compromised. The ring main unit inspected by the evaluators on site had already been repaired and was in use, making it impossible to verify the original damage condition; 4. The evaluation report from Shenzhen XX Road Traffic Accident Vehicle and Property Loss Assessment Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as XX Assessment Company), provided by the defendant XX Transportation Company, was made immediately after the accident at the scene. This report contained detailed records of the on-site inspection and the damage to relevant equipment, and should be used as the basis for determining the plaintiff’s property damage facts, extent, and items; 5. The insurance in this case was commercial insurance, not compulsory insurance, so the insurance company should not be a defendant bearing civil liability; 6. The insurance company should compensate according to the insurance contract, with a deductible of 10% of the accident loss or 5,000 yuan, whichever is higher; 7. If the commercial insurance in this case were treated as compulsory insurance, according to compulsory insurance regulations, the property loss compensation limit would be only 2,000 yuan; 8. If the commercial insurance were treated as compulsory insurance, litigation costs would not fall within the scope of insurance liability under compulsory insurance regulations.
To support its claims, the plaintiff submitted the following evidence to this court:
1. Traffic accident determination letter issued by the Yantian Brigade of Shenzhen Traffic Police Bureau, proving that the brigade determined the driver Yang XX in this case bears full responsibility for the accident.
2. Ring main unit damage report and three photos issued by Shenzhen XXX Industrial Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as XXX Company), proving the damage to the plaintiff's transformers, ring main units, and other power facilities caused by the traffic accident initiated by Yang XX.
3. Legal work contact form, proving the direct losses incurred by the plaintiff due to the traffic accident caused by the defendant.
4. A delivery note dated April 15, 2005, proving that the plaintiff replaced the damaged items.
5. Asset assessment report on property losses from the traffic accident issued by XX Asset Appraisal Company, proving that the losses caused to the plaintiff by the traffic accident amount to 107,477 yuan.
The defendant XX Transport Company's objections to the plaintiff's submitted evidence are as follows: No objection to Evidence 1; objection to Evidence 2, as the plaintiff did not provide XXX Company's qualification certificate for appraisal, and the photos clearly show only the protective net was damaged, not the ring main unit; objection to the authenticity of Evidence 3, as the plaintiff replaced the ring main unit on April 18, 2005, not the April 15, 2005 recorded; objection to the authenticity of Evidence 4, as this document lacks an official seal and amount data; and objection to the appraisal conclusion in Evidence 5.
The defendant XX Insurance Company’s objections to the evidence submitted by the plaintiff are as follows:
1. No objection to Evidence 1.
2. Objections to the authenticity, legality, and relevance of Evidence 2. The plaintiff has no evidence to prove that XXX Company has the qualification to issue appraisal conclusions, and the plaintiff did not apply for the company to appear as a witness in court. This material cannot be used as evidence.
3. No objection to the authenticity of the photos in Evidence 3, but objection to their probative value. The photos only show damage to the guardrail of the electrical cabinet and slight movement of the cabinet shell, without revealing internal damage. Objection to the probative value of the legal work contact sheet, as it is merely a unilateral document from the plaintiff and cannot prove the damaged items or the amount of damage.
4. Objections to the authenticity, legality, and relevance of Evidence 4. The plaintiff did not provide the original purchase invoices for the grid cabinet and outdoor box.
5. No objection to the authenticity of Evidence 5, but objections to its legality, originality, probative value, and relevance. First, the appraisal report explicitly states that the calculation formula is appraisal value = replacement cost × newness rate, but it does not specify the newness rate. Second, the report states that the relevant information and data come from materials provided by the plaintiff, and their accuracy and authenticity cannot be verified. Third, the appraisers did not visit the site when the equipment was replaced, and the appraisal was based solely on the ring main unit damage report provided by XXX Company, while the report explicitly acknowledges that the authenticity of the report from XXX Company cannot be guaranteed. Therefore, the appraisal conclusion lacks a legal basis and has no value. Fourth, the appraisal report does not explain the unit prices and appraisal value sources for the ring main unit and its shell in the attached "Detailed List of Traffic Accident Loss Items Appraisal." Based on photos from the XX Appraisal Company’s investigation report, the original damaged ring main unit model was 9834s004 with a power rating of 12KV to 75KV, while the newly replaced ring main unit has a power rating of 24KV to 125KV, meaning the model, function, and value are completely different from the original. Thus, this appraisal report has no evidentiary value.
#p##e#
The defendant XX Transport Company submitted the following evidence:
1. The "On-site Inspection and Investigation Report of YueB/406XX" issued by XX Appraisal Company, proving: 1) The company arrived at the scene immediately on the day of the incident for inspection, determining the loss amount to be 17,063 yuan; 2) The exterior of the target ring main unit was undamaged, only the switch protection gas pressure gauge showed no sulfur hexafluoride gas inside the switch; 3) The plaintiff did not notify the defendant XX Company when replacing the equipment.
2. The "Supplementary Explanation to the On-site Inspection and Investigation Report of YueB/406XX" issued by XX Appraisal Company, along with 14 attached photos, proving: 1) The ring main unit had no external damage, so it could not be confirmed that the absence of sulfur hexafluoride gas was related to this incident; 2) The model of the newly replaced ring main unit differed from the old one, with the old being 12 kV to 75 kV and the new being 24 kV to 125 kV.
3. Three testimonies from witnesses Qiao X, Fu XX, and Yang XX, proving that the plaintiff did not replace the ring main unit on the day of the incident but on April 18. Witnesses Qiao X and Fu XX appeared in court for testimony and cross-examination, while witness Yang XX did not.
4. The insurance policy, proving that the defendant insured the accident vehicle with third-party liability insurance, with a coverage amount of 500,000 yuan.
The plaintiff's cross-examination opinions on the evidence submitted by the defendant XX Transport Company are as follows:
1. No objection to the authenticity of Evidence 1, but objection to the appraisal conclusion and the determined loss amount; 2. No objection to the authenticity of Evidence 2; 3. Do not accept the content of the witness testimony; 4. No objection to Evidence 4.
2. Defendant XX Insurance Company has no objection to the evidence submitted by Defendant XX Transport Company.
3. Defendant XX Insurance Company submitted a copy of the insurance clause as evidence to prove: 1. The relevant insurance is commercial insurance, not compulsory insurance; 2. The insurance company should bear compensation liability in accordance with the insurance contract; 3. According to the insurance contract, when the insured's driver bears full responsibility for the accident, the insurance deductible is 10% of the accident loss or 5,000 yuan, whichever is higher.
4. The plaintiff's cross-examination opinion on the evidence submitted by Defendant XX Insurance Company is as follows: No objection to the authenticity of this evidence, but objection to its relevance; this concerns the insurance claim relationship between the two defendants and is unrelated to the plaintiff.
5. Defendant XX Transport Company applied for witness Chen XX to testify on the day of the trial. According to the "Supreme People's Court's Several Provisions on Evidence in Civil Litigation," a party applying for a witness to testify in court should do so ten days before the expiration of the evidence submission period. Since Defendant XX Transport Company's application exceeded the deadline and the plaintiff did not consent to cross-examination, this court did not permit witness Chen XX to testify in court.
6. This court, on its own authority, obtained relevant evidence from the Yantian Traffic Police Brigade regarding the traffic accident case file: 1. Road traffic accident scene diagram and on-site record; 2. Photos of the traffic accident scene; 3. The accident account provided by the driver Yang XX; 4. The interrogation record of Yang XX made by the traffic police department.
The plaintiff has no objections to the evidence collected by this court ex officio.
The defendant XX Transport Company and XX Property Insurance Company have no objection to the evidence collected by this court ex officio.
The authenticity is not disputed, but it is believed that the phrase "damaged trees and the power supply bureau's transformer at the scene" in the on-site record refers to damage in a general sense.
Based on the evidence that has been cross-examined as stated above, as well as the statements and admissions made by the parties during the court trial, this court finds the facts as follows: On April 15, 2005, during the course of performing his duties, Yang XX, an employee of the defendant XX Transportation Company, was driving the company's Guangdong B/406XX heavy semi-trailer tractor eastward on Shenyan Road. When reaching the intersection near the epidemic prevention station, the front of the vehicle collided with four pedestrians and their four bicycles on the roadside, and subsequently struck roadside greenery and a power transformer. This traffic accident caused damage to the pedestrians, the greenery, and the plaintiff's power transformer. The plaintiff's German-made high-voltage ring main unit's external protective mesh box was damaged, the entire ring main unit was displaced by approximately 20-30 cm, and the sulfur hexafluoride gas inside the unit, which serves to protect the high-voltage automatic switch, completely leaked out. According to the "Traffic Accident Determination" issued by the Yantian Traffic Police Brigade, driver Yang XX failed to drive safely in accordance with operational standards, violating Article 22, Paragraph 1 of the "Road Traffic Safety Law," which constituted the fault leading to this accident, and he should bear full responsibility for it. After the accident, the plaintiff repaired and replaced the damaged equipment without notifying the defendant to send personnel to the scene. The power range of the original damaged ring main unit was 12 kV–75 kV, while the power range of the new replacement ring main unit was 24 kV–125 kV. After accepting the report, XX Appraisal Company conducted an on-site inspection on the day of the accident and issued a survey report, on-site investigation, investigation report, and supplementary explanations on June 21, June 29, and July 9 of the same year, respectively. It ultimately determined that the cost of replacing the damaged ring main unit was RMB 74,869.
It was additionally found that the defendant, XX Transport Company, purchased motor vehicle insurance for vehicle number Yue B/406XX from the defendant, XX Property Insurance Company, with a third-party liability insurance limit of RMB 500,000, and the insurance period was from January 18, 2005, to January 19, 2006.
This court holds that:
I. Regarding the Determination of Liability. The "General Principles of Civil Law of the People's Republic of China" clearly stipulates that citizens and legal persons who infringe upon the property of the state, collectives, or others due to fault shall bear civil liability. In this case, according to the "Traffic Accident Determination" issued by the Yantian Traffic Police Brigade, driver Yang XX failed to drive safely in accordance with operational norms, violating relevant provisions of the "Road Traffic Safety Law," which constituted the fault leading to this accident, and he should bear full responsibility for this accident. The traffic police department's determination of accident liability is reasonable, and this court accepts it. Since defendant XX Transport Company is the registered owner of vehicle Yue B/406XX, and driver Yang XX was performing duties for the company at the time of the accident, defendant XX Transport Company shall bear the relevant civil liability for Yang XX's tortious act. Furthermore, because defendant XX Insurance Company handled motor vehicle insurance, including third-party liability insurance, for vehicle Yue B/406XX owned by defendant XX Transport Company, and this insurance contract was formed before July 1, 2006, before the "Regulations on Compulsory Traffic Accident Liability Insurance for Motor Vehicles" formulated by the State Council came into effect, defendant XX Insurance Company shall, in accordance with Article 50 of the "Insurance Law of the People's Republic of China" and Article 76 of the "Road Traffic Safety Law of the People's Republic of China," directly compensate the plaintiff within the limit of third-party liability insurance, and defendant XX Transport Company shall bear joint and several liability. The defense argument by defendant XX Insurance Company that the third-party liability insurance purchased by defendant XX Transport Company from it is commercial insurance rather than compulsory insurance, and that the plaintiff has not made any claim against it, so it should not bear liability to the plaintiff, lacks legal basis, and this court does not accept it. Additionally, the defense argument by defendant XX Insurance Company that it should enjoy a deductible according to the insurance contract signed with defendant XX Transport Company, as such a provision is a contractual agreement rather than a statutory exemption, has no legal basis, and this court also does not accept it.
II. Regarding the Determination of Specific Compensation Amounts.
#p##e#
Regarding the amount of property losses caused to the plaintiff by this traffic accident, the on-site investigation report and supplementary explanation of XX Appraisal Company and the appraisal report of XX Asset Appraisal Company have produced different evaluation conclusions. The appraisal activity of XX Asset Appraisal Company was conducted one and a half years after the traffic accident, and the appraisal report explicitly states in Special Notes (3) that because the company's personnel were not present during the removal and replacement of equipment, they could not witness the specific loss situation of the ring main unit, and could only understand some circumstances and data of the accident from materials provided by the plaintiff. The company cannot guarantee the accuracy and authenticity of the data. Thus, due to the plaintiff's failure to notify relevant defendants for confirmation and self-replacement of equipment, the subsequent appraisal conclusion by XX Asset Appraisal Company lacks a reliable and accurate basis. Furthermore, XX Asset Appraisal Company used the replacement cost method for this appraisal, and the appraisal report explicitly states in Special Notes (4) that the company's appraisers found during on-site inspection that the damaged property had been repaired and put into use without any abnormalities. However, because the new ring main unit replaced by the plaintiff differs in model from the original damaged one, the replacement cost method was used based on the market price of new products of the same type and with similar functions, rather than the price of the original damaged ring main unit. Therefore, the appraisal conclusion derived by XX Asset Appraisal Company inevitably lacks objectivity and accuracy. Accordingly, this court does not accept the conclusion of the property loss appraisal value made by XX Asset Appraisal Company. In contrast, XX Appraisal Company conducted an on-site inspection on the day of the accident and later examined the replaced old ring main unit in detail, with detailed inspection records. Therefore, this court believes that the inspection report, on-site investigation, investigation report, and supplementary explanation of this company are more objective and accurate. According to the report, supplementary explanation, and on-site photo records of XX Appraisal Company, the guardrail of the plaintiff's ring main unit was broken. Although there was no external damage, the entire cabinet body had a displacement of 20-30 cm. Therefore, this court determines that the complete leakage of sulfur hexafluoride gas, which protects the high-voltage automatic switch inside the ring main unit, has a causal relationship with the significant overall displacement of the ring main unit cabinet after being hit by the accident vehicle. Additionally, considering that XX Appraisal Company, after consulting with power equipment experts from the Shenzhen Quality and Technical Supervision Bureau and the Quality and Technical Supervision Appraisal Office, provided analysis opinions in the supplementary explanation on the repair of the ring main unit: 1) There are currently no platforms or means in China to test ring main units, making it impossible to verify whether repaired equipment meets process requirements; 2) Foreign manufacturers also do not allow distributors or users to repair without authorization, and unauthorized repair constitutes infringement, requiring full responsibility for direct losses and product reputation losses caused by repair quality issues; 3) If a high-voltage equipment failure occurs, the disaster would be a massive regional catastrophe, and no department or individual can bear such significant responsibility; 4) Given the above three reasons, in past cases where ring main units were indeed damaged, complete replacement was always adopted. This court finds that the plaintiff's complete replacement of the ring main unit equipment is reasonable and necessary. This court accepts the appraisal conclusion of XX Appraisal Company regarding the cost of replacing the equipment, i.e., the plaintiff's loss due to this accident amounts to RMB 74,869. This compensation amount does not exceed the limit of the third-party liability insurance for vehicle Yue B/406XX underwritten by defendant XX Insurance Company.
In summary, in accordance with Article 106, Paragraph 2 of the "General Principles of Civil Law of the People's Republic of China," Article 76, Paragraph 1 of the "Road Traffic Safety Law of the People's Republic of China," Articles 50 and 51 of the "Insurance Law of the People's Republic of China," and Article 64, Paragraph 1 of the "Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China," the judgment is as follows:
I. The total compensation for property losses suffered by the plaintiff, Guangdong XX Company Shenzhen XX Bureau, due to this traffic accident is RMB 74,869;
II. Defendant XX Property Insurance Co., Ltd. Shenzhen Branch shall, within ten days from the effective date of this judgment, pay the plaintiff, Guangdong XX Company Shenzhen XX Bureau, compensation of RMB 74,869.
III. Defendant Shenzhen XX Transport Company shall bear joint and several liability for the compensation amount payable by the aforementioned defendant XX Property Insurance Co., Ltd. Shenzhen Branch.
The case acceptance fee of RMB 5,510 yuan shall be borne by defendant XX Property Insurance Co., Ltd. Shenzhen Branch in the amount of RMB 2,063 yuan, and by plaintiff Guangdong XX Company Shenzhen XX Bureau in the amount of RMB 3,447 yuan. The appraisal fee of RMB 2,000 yuan shall be borne by plaintiff Guangdong XX Company Shenzhen XX Bureau. The case acceptance fee has been prepaid by the plaintiff and will not be refunded by this court. The amount payable by defendant XX Property Insurance Co., Ltd. Shenzhen Branch shall be paid directly to the plaintiff within ten days from the effective date of this judgment, with defendant Shenzhen XX Transport Company assuming joint and several liability for payment.
If dissatisfied with this judgment, an appeal may be filed with this court within fifteen days from the date of service of the judgment, along with six copies of the appeal petition, for appeal to the Shenzhen Intermediate People's Court of Guangdong Province.
Presiding Judge: Jiang X
Acting Judge: Hu XX
Acting Judge Chen XX
Clerk: Huang X
People's Court of Yantian District, Shenzhen City, Guangdong Province
January 22, 2007
