After part of the video inside the Chongqing bus was exposed, public anger was hard to quell. The unruly female passenger was branded with the infamous label "trash woman," sparking continuous condemnation. Many say that although she has passed away and criminal charges may be avoided, civil liability cannot be escaped, and the responsibility for compensation is indispensable.

The Chongqing Wanzhou bus crash that touched the hearts of hundreds of millions (Image source: internet)

Is it legally valid? The author believes that the crime of endangering public safety by dangerous means is a behavioral offense, and it does not require the perpetrator to have direct intent subjectively. As long as the "trash woman" engaged in specific dangerous acts that endangered public safety, regardless of the outcome, she should be held criminally liable. However, since she has died, she escapes criminal sanctions. Although criminally responsible, based on the currently disclosed bus interior video and external vehicle dashcam footage, the "trash woman" does not need to bear civil liability for the bus falling into the water, and her heirs do not need to compensate within the scope of the inheritance.

Cartoon: Female passenger throwing a tantrum (Image source: internet)

From the external vehicle dashcam footage, the bus made a sharp left turn, and based on the brake lights, there was no sign of braking. After the bus was salvaged, the court confirmed that the vehicle was in good condition with no malfunctions. According to the bus interior video, the sharp left turn occurred because the driver turned the steering wheel a full rotation to the left within two seconds. During these fatal two seconds, the "trash woman" did not appear in the frame, and the steering wheel, accelerator, and brake were all under the driver's complete control.

Simulation diagram of the Chongqing Wanzhou bus crash scene (Image source: internet)

Determining causation in civil law requires us to identify which specific harmful outcome was caused by whose actions, so as to determine who should bear responsibility. In other words, we must start from a specific harmful outcome, trace back along the causal chain, and seek the specific cause that led to that outcome. In this case, the harmful outcome is the bus falling into the water. One step back, the identified cause is the bus's sharp left turn. Taking this as the outcome and going one step further, the identified cause is the driver turning the steering wheel a full rotation to the left. Taking this as the outcome and going further, we move beyond analyzing physical actions and need to analyze the driver's thoughts—there are currently three views: first, the driver intended to drive into the bridge; second, the driver only intended to cause a minor accident; third, the driver made a misjudgment about the vehicle's position and direction (many experienced drivers believe this is impossible, and the author shares this view)—this is an indefinite multiple-choice question that will never have even a relatively certain answer.

Simulation of the driving trajectory of the bus that fell into the river in Wanzhou, Chongqing (Image source: internet)

Causality has a temporal sequence; the trash woman's verbal abuse and physical assault on the driver indeed occurred before the driver's certain thoughts emerged. However, concluding a causal relationship solely based on one phenomenon following another is erroneous. Moreover, thoughts are only internal causes of phenomena, not equivalent to the phenomena themselves—the thought "I want to do it" does not necessarily lead to the action "I did it." The trash woman is not Yuri from Red Alert; she cannot intentionally alter the driver's thoughts by creating a phenomenon. Regardless of what thoughts the driver held in those fatal two seconds, there is no causal relationship between the prior phenomenon (the trash woman's verbal abuse and physical assault) and the emergence of those thoughts, nor between the prior phenomenon and the subsequent phenomenon (the driver turning the steering wheel left).
 

The wreckage of the bus retrieved from the water (Image source: internet)

When the case was debated online, some netizens who believed the trash woman should bear civil liability cited this example: "If B curses A, causing A to become angry and die from a rise in blood pressure, can you say there is no causal relationship between B's behavior and A's death? Can you say B's behavior is not the cause of A's death?" This is a typical case of swapping concepts by swapping scenarios. In the "anger-induced death" case, the causal relationship is between B's cursing (phenomenon one) and the rise in blood pressure (phenomenon two), which are not connected through human thought—emotions like joy, anger, sorrow, and happiness all cause increased adrenaline secretion in mammals, leading to higher blood pressure. Simply put, if you anger a cat, its blood pressure will also rise. In this case, the verbal abuse and physical assault could raise the driver's blood pressure, but they would not cause the driver to turn the steering wheel left by a full rotation—does a cat with elevated blood pressure start walking to the left?

In summary, the trash woman violated criminal law but escaped criminal liability due to her death. However, the causal chain "trash woman's verbal abuse and physical assault on the driver >> driver turns steering wheel left by a full rotation >> bus turns left and falls into the river" does not exist. Therefore, the trash woman should not bear civil liability for compensation to other passengers, the driver, and the bus company.

(This article only represents the author's personal views and does not reflect the stance of the firm.)
 

Warm feedback     Law accommodates compassion

Details of the Double 11 free consultation event click on the poster below

↓↓↓