Bloody lesson from no-honking zones: One honk, one life lost, tens of thousands in compensation
[2] Compiled from: China Legal Popularization, CCTV Finance
[3] An elderly man, while walking by the roadside early in the morning, collapsed and died after being startled by a sudden air horn. His family believed the driver who honked was at fault and sued the relevant parties for over 340,000 yuan.
Case review
[4] According to the plaintiff's representative, in the summer of 2018, 72-year-old Zhang and his wife Shi traveled from Wanzhou District, Chongqing, to Lichuan City, Hubei Province, for a summer vacation. On July 21 at 8 a.m., after breakfast, Zhang and his wife went for a walk. When they reached a residential community entrance, they met a friend and started chatting. While talking by the roadside, a garbage truck suddenly started moving, and the driver honked an air horn.
[5] Unexpectedly, after the piercing air horn sound, Zhang suddenly collapsed. Despite rescue efforts, he died.
[6] After the incident, Zhang's wife Shi learned that the driver, also surnamed Zhang, was commissioned by the Moudao Town Village Construction Center in Lichuan City to perform road work. Shi then sued driver Zhang, the Moudao Town Village Construction Center, and the insurance company in the Wanzhou District People's Court of Chongqing.
Shi believed that it was because the vehicle's horn exceeded normal volume that caused her husband to be startled, fall, and die, and the driver should bear primary responsibility.
However, the local traffic police department did not issue an accident responsibility determination, but only provided a situation explanation. This explanation showed that the decibel level of the horn could not be determined, nor could it be determined whether there was a causal relationship between the elderly man's fall and the vehicle's horn sound. Therefore, before the trial, the judge made a special trip to the scene to investigate, and during the investigation, a new discovery was made: this area was a no-honking zone, and the driver had honked in the no-honking zone.
[1] Court Opinion
The judge believed that regardless of the reason for honking or the decibel level of the horn, the defendant driver Zhang's act of honking in a no-honking section already constituted an illegal act. Combined with the judicial appraisal report on this accident, it was determined that the defendant driver Zhang's honking behavior was the inducing factor for the elderly man's fall and subsequent death, and there was a causal relationship between the two.
On September 17, 2020, the Wanzhou District People's Court of Chongqing City issued a judgment on this case. It was determined that the losses from this traffic accident should be compensated within the liability limit of the compulsory traffic insurance of the Kaijiang Branch of People's Property Insurance Company of China. For the insufficient portion, the liability ratio was determined as 15% to be borne by the defendant driver Zhang, 5% by the defendant Moudao Town Village Construction Center, and the three defendants jointly compensated a total of over 150,000 yuan. The remaining portion was to be borne by the plaintiff themselves.
Laws & Regulations
Article 90 of the Road Traffic Safety Law of the People's Republic of China
A motor vehicle driver who violates the provisions of road traffic safety laws and regulations on road通行 rules shall be given a warning or a fine of not less than 20 yuan but not more than 200 yuan. If otherwise provided by this law, punishment shall be imposed according to those provisions.
Article 62 of the Regulations for the Implementation of the Road Traffic Safety Law of the People's Republic of China
When driving a motor vehicle, the following acts are prohibited:
(1) Driving with doors or compartments not properly closed;
(2) Hanging or placing objects within the front and rear window range of the driver's cab that obstruct the driver's view;
(3) Engaging in acts that impede safe driving, such as making or answering handheld phone calls or watching television;
(4) Turning off the engine or coasting in neutral when going down a steep slope.
(5) Throwing objects onto the road;
(6) Driving a motorcycle with hands off the handlebars or hanging objects on the handlebars;
(7) Driving a motor vehicle continuously for more than 4 hours without stopping to rest, or stopping to rest for less than 20 minutes;
(8) Honking in areas or on roads where honking is prohibited.
[1] The author's perspective
In fact, the purpose of car honking is to alert pedestrians or other vehicles, and its original intention was good. However, car horns have been abused to the point where people honk loudly and recklessly regardless of time or place. Therefore, to improve the urban environment and enhance driving standards, major cities have formulated and implemented regulations prohibiting honking within urban areas. Yet, due to the lack of long-term management mechanisms and effective supervision, even in no-honking zones, some drivers still ignore the rules and honk freely. At this point, it becomes a matter of the driver's personal quality.
In this case, the key point is that the garbage truck driver honked in a no-honking zone, causing the elderly person to die from shock. At first glance, it seems unfair that the driver is held responsible for a life lost just because of a single honk. However, the issue lies in the fact that it was a no-honking zone. According to the aforementioned laws and regulations, honking is prohibited in no-honking zones, and any violation constitutes an illegal act. Thus, the driver first committed an illegal act, and it was later proven that this act had a causal relationship with the elderly person's death. Regardless of the severity of the violation, the driver cannot escape liability.
Additionally, it is noteworthy that the final judgment did not place all blame on the driver, but rather assigned proportional liability beyond the insurance coverage, with the plaintiff's family also bearing a portion. This approach neither imposes excessive punishment on the driver nor fails to penalize their unintentional mistake, demonstrating that beyond legal principles, there is room for human compassion.
