[2] Secondary collision hard to assign blame, joint compensation shows justice

Compiled from: Laixi Court
 
Case review
[3] On October 20, 2020, 57-year-old Li was riding an electric bicycle northbound along the non-motor vehicle lane when he was knocked to the ground by a two-wheeled motorcycle traveling in the same direction from behind. The perpetrator's identity was unknown, and he fled the scene after the accident. Li's injury status was unclear. About 30 seconds later, Zou, driving a box truck, failed to notice Li lying on the ground and ran over him. Li died. The traffic police determined that the motorcycle owner bore full responsibility for the first accident, Zou bore full responsibility for the second accident, and Li bore no responsibility for either.

 
 

[4] On the day of the incident, Laixi Municipal Hospital issued a death medical certificate (inference) stating that Li's cause of death was "craniocerebral trauma." Ten days later, the public security department issued a forensic autopsy report, concluding that Li's death was consistent with craniocerebral injury combined with thoracic and abdominal organ injury caused by a traffic accident, but it was unclear which accident caused the death.
 
[5] Since the perpetrator of the first accident was not found, Li's family sued Zou and his insurance company, demanding compensation of 1,172,766 yuan.
 
[6] During the trial, the insurance company argued that before Zou ran over the victim, Li was already on the ground, and his condition at that time could not be determined. Therefore, the compensation amount that the motorcycle driver should bear should be deducted before calculating the insurance company's liability.
 
 
Court judgment
The Laixi court found that the motor vehicle driven by Zou was a high-speed transport tool, occupying a dominant position on the road, and the party enjoying the high-speed transport tool should bear a higher duty of care for the dangers arising from it. However, Zou failed to drive safely within the lane and neglected to observe, running over the fallen Li. In the absence of evidence from any party confirming Li's death, Zou's act of running over Li and the hit-and-run motorcyclist's act of knocking Li down were both sufficient to cause the harmful consequence of Li's death.
 
According to Article 1171 of the Civil Code, Zou and the hit-and-run driver shall bear joint and several liability. Regarding the apportionment of liability between Zou and the hit-and-run motorcyclist involved in the case, the relevant right holders may seek recourse from the motorcyclist separately after the hit-and-run driver is identified.
 
Where the law provides for joint and several liability, the injured party has the right to request any or all of the joint and several liable persons to assume liability. The plaintiff's choice to hold Zou fully liable for compensation complies with legal provisions, and this court supports it. Since the vehicle driven by Zou was insured with compulsory traffic insurance and commercial third-party insurance of 1 million yuan (without deductible) at the insurance company, and the accident occurred during the insurance period, the plaintiff's losses shall be compensated by the insurance company within the limits of insurance liability. The final judgment ordered the insurance company to compensate the plaintiff for various losses totaling 1,171,033 yuan.
 
The insurance company later appealed, but the second instance rejected the appeal and upheld the original judgment.
 
 
Laws & Regulations
《 Civil Code 》
Article 1171
Where two or more persons separately commit tortious acts causing the same damage, and each person's act is sufficient to cause the entire damage, the actors shall bear joint and several liability.
 
[1] Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Road Traffic Accident Damage Compensation Cases
Article 18
[2] Where a traffic accident involving multiple motor vehicles causes damage to a third party, and the loss exceeds the sum of the liability limits of each motor vehicle's compulsory traffic accident liability insurance, each insurance company shall bear compensation liability within its respective liability limit; if the loss does not exceed the sum of the liability limits, and a party requests that each insurance company bear compensation liability in proportion to its liability limit relative to the total sum of liability limits, the people's court shall support such request.
 
[3] Where a traffic accident occurs due to the connected use of a tractor and a trailer that have separately purchased compulsory traffic accident liability insurance in accordance with the law, causing damage to a third party, and a party requests that each insurance company bear compensation equally within their respective liability limits, the people's court shall support such request.
 
[4] Where a traffic accident involving multiple motor vehicles causes damage to a third party, and some of the motor vehicles are not insured with compulsory traffic accident liability insurance, and a party requests that the insurance companies that have already underwritten such insurance first provide compensation within their liability limits, the people's court shall support such request. If an insurance company exercises the right of recourse against the uninsured obligor or the tortfeasor for the portion exceeding its share of liability, the people's court shall support such action.

 
 

[1] The author's perspective
[5] First, from the nature of this case, it is a typical "secondary collision" scenario in traffic accidents. The motorcycle driver and the truck driver, without prior collusion, successively caused harm to Li. Considering the time factor and objective connection, it can be determined that both were subjectively without fault but jointly caused the same damage result, constituting a mixed liability accident.
 
[6] Second, from the perspective of imputation, Zou, as the truck driver, should fulfill a higher duty of care. Since the autopsy report issued by the public security authorities does not exclude the possibility that the victim died from the collision by the motorcycle driver, nor does it exclude the possibility that the victim died from being run over by Zou, each independent individual tort could potentially cause the entire damage, i.e., reaching the level of "sufficient" to cause the victim's death. Therefore, the motorcycle driver and Zou bear joint and several liability.
 
Finally, regarding compensation, since the motorcycle driver has not been found and Zou bears joint liability, according to Article 18 of the Supreme People's Court's Interpretation on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Road Traffic Accident Compensation Cases, the insurance company that insured Zou's truck should provide compensation within the liability limit. If the motorcycle perpetrator is found in the future, the insurance company can exercise the right of recourse against that perpetrator.
 
The author believes that this judgment not only correctly applies the law but also reflects humanitarianism in the compensation issue, considering the emotional grief of the deceased's family while skillfully resolving the perpetrator's liability and compensation. Nevertheless, the author reminds everyone to pay attention to driving safety: there are thousands of roads, but safety comes first.