[2] Compiled from: Shandong High Court
 
[2] Case Review
[3] On June 4, 2018, Jiang and colleagues flew from Zhoushan to Qingdao, then used the "Didi platform" to hail a car driven by Zhang to Rizhao. After boarding, both parties agreed to cancel the order and switch to private payment. While Zhang was driving on a section of the Shenhai Expressway, the car rear-ended a truck driven by Chen, resulting in Jiang's death. The traffic accident report held Zhang primarily responsible and Chen secondarily responsible. Three close relatives of Jiang sued Didi Chuxing Technology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "Didi Company"), demanding 1.2 million yuan in compensation.

 
 

 
争议焦点
[4] Jiang's three close relatives alleged that Zhang accepted the task through the "Didi platform" and picked up Jiang and three others. His act of unilaterally asking passengers to cancel the order and charging privately was illegal, and Didi Company had management faults and should bear corresponding compensation liability.
 
[5] Didi Company argued that before the trip after the order was placed, Jiang canceled the order through the Didi Chuxing app system and privately reached an agreement with Zhang, which had nothing to do with Didi Company, so Didi Company should not be held liable.

 
 

 
[1] Court Opinion
[6] The first-instance court held that Jiang used the Didi Chuxing app to ride in Zhang's car, and later both parties agreed to cancel the order and switch to private payment. Although Jiang had canceled the order, the passenger transport contract between him and Zhang was still being performed. Didi Company failed to supervise adequately. According to Article 16 of the "Interim Measures for the Management of Online Ride-Hailing Business Services," online ride-hailing platform companies bear carrier responsibility, and Didi Company should bear compensation liability. The court then ordered Didi Company to compensate Jiang and the four others for losses of 800,000 yuan.
 
Didi Company refused to accept the judgment and filed an appeal. Didi Company argued that the ride-hailing order in question had been canceled before departure, and after the cancellation, the contractual relationship between the passenger and Didi Company ended. Didi Company was not the carrier and had no fault in the accident, so it should not bear compensation liability.
 
The court of second instance held that the victim Jiang and others had booked a vehicle driven by Zhang through Didi's platform. After Zhang received the order from Jiang and others, the parties negotiated and Jiang canceled the order, switching to a private transaction. Once Jiang canceled the order, the contractual relationship between him and Didi Company was immediately terminated, and Didi Company no longer owed corresponding contractual obligations to Jiang and others. After the order was canceled, although the new contract between Zhang and Jiang and others continued to be performed, the other three passengers did not submit evidence proving that Didi Company had any fault in the subsequent performance of the contract. Therefore, their request for Didi Company to bear compensation liability lacked factual and legal basis. Didi Company's grounds for appeal were valid, so the first-instance judgment was overturned, and the lawsuit filed by Jiang and three others against Didi Company was dismissed.
 
 
[1] The author's perspective
Nowadays, to better meet the diverse travel needs of the public, promote the integrated development of the taxi industry and the internet, regulate the operation and service behavior of online ride-hailing, ensure operational safety, and protect the legitimate rights and interests of passengers, the Ministry of Transport, the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology, and five other ministries jointly issued the "Interim Measures for the Management of Online Ride-Hailing Operation Services" on July 27, 2016, effective from November 1, 2016. Article 16 stipulates that online ride-hailing platform companies bear the responsibility of the carrier and must ensure operational safety and protect the legitimate rights and interests of passengers.
 
In this case, both the first-instance and second-instance courts regarded Didi Company as the carrier. The difference was that the first-instance court believed that Didi Company still assumed the role of the carrier even after the driver and passenger negotiated to cancel the order. In contrast, the second-instance court held that after the driver and passenger privately negotiated to cancel the order, a new contract was formed, and the previous contract between Didi Company and the passenger had been terminated upon cancellation. Didi Company could neither benefit from it nor effectively supervise it, so holding Didi Company responsible for supervising offline ride-hailing operations was impractical and violated the principle of consistency between rights and obligations. The approach of the second-instance court better balanced the relationships among the ride-hailing platform, drivers, and passengers, and was more conducive to promoting the healthy development of ride-hailing platform services.