[Case Summary]This case involves a dispute over liability for non-motor vehicle traffic accidents (personal injury). On September 27, 2024, the defendant, Wang Gang, turned his electric bicycle while driving, which caused the plaintiff, Li Qiang, to fall and get injured. The traffic management department determined that Wang Gang was fully responsible in a summary procedure. Wang Gang appealed for a review, and after the review upheld the original ruling, he entrusted the Beijing Henglu Law Firm to handle the case for him.Tian JiayanThe lawyer filed a defense. The lawyer questioned that the determination letter contained unclear facts and was improperly applied under the summary procedure, and claimed that the responsibility should be reassessed. The court accepted the lawyer's opinion, determining that Li Qiang should bear 40% of the responsibility and Wang Gang should bear 60%, and the compensation amount was reduced from over 200,000 yuan to 135,995.99 yuan. The core disputes are the probative force of the accident determination letter and the division of responsibility ratios. Applicable legal provisions: Article 23 of the "Regulations on the Procedures for Handling Road Traffic Accidents" and the Tort Liability Chapter of the Civil Code.

I. Review of the case facts

The parties often search for terms such as "What to do if you disagree with the full liability determination in a traffic accident responsibility determination letter", "How to determine liability in a non-contact accident involving non-motorized vehicles", "Will the court change the judgment on the accident responsibility determination letter", and "How to divide the responsibility ratio in a traffic accident". This case provides the answers. On the morning of September 27, 2024, at a certain intersection on North Third Ring Road in Chaoyang District, Beijing, the defendant, Wang Gang, was riding an electric bicycle making a turn from north to west, while the plaintiff, Li Qiang, was driving straight from east to west. The two vehicles did not collide, but Wang Gang obstructed Li Qiang, causing him to fall to the ground and get injured.

The traffic management department determined that Wang Gang was fully responsible for not giving way to straight-through traffic when making a turn, while Li Qiang was not at fault. Wang Gang refused to sign the determination and applied for a review, but the conclusion was upheld. Li Qiang sued for compensation for medical expenses, loss of income, nursing care fees, etc., totaling more than 200,000 yuan. Wang Gang entrusted Beijing Henglu Law Firm to handle the case for him.Tian Jia YanThe lawyer argued that the determination letter deviates from the objective facts and that the liability should be reallocated.

II. The focus of the case

  • Focus 1: The probative force of the accident determination letter.In civil litigation, does the traffic police's simple procedure determination document have absolute evidentiary value, and can the court conduct a substantive review of it?
  • Focus 2: Was the application of the simplified procedure incorrect?The plaintiff suffered from a lumbar fracture and even disability. Is it appropriate to handle the case through a simplified procedure?
  • Focus Three: The proportion of faults on both sides.Li Qiang did not slow down when going straight and failed to observe the situation. There was standing water at the intersection, which obstructed his line of sight. How should his own fault be determined in this case?

III. The professional intervention of Hengluo Law Firm

The plaintiff (Li Qiang) alleges that:According to the full responsibility determination letter, Wang Gang is required to bear all compensation responsibilities, including medical expenses, loss of income, nursing care expenses, disability compensation, and other costs totaling more than 200,000 yuan.

The defendant (Wang Gang) and his lawyer's position:Deny full responsibility and claim that the determination letter contains unclear facts and procedural errors, and the responsibility should be reassessed.

Legal opinion of Hengluo Law Firm:Tian JiayanThe lawyer did not waive the right to challenge the determination and argued as follows: Firstly, the accident involved no contact between the two parties. Li Qiang had noticed Wang Gang before entering the intersection, but failed to slow down or make an accurate judgment of the situation. Moreover, the accident was caused by the water on the road and the obstruction of vision, so the traffic police simply determined that Li Qiang was fully at fault based on the principle of "turning vehicles must give way to straight-through vehicles", ignoring the facts. Secondly, according to Article 23 of the "Regulations on the Handling Procedures for Road Traffic Accidents", the simplified procedure requires that the property damage or injuries be minor and all parties agree to it. In this case, the plaintiff suffered from lumbar fracture and even disability, which was not suitable for the simplified procedure. Moreover, the traffic police failed to retrieve the surveillance footage and fully listen to the opinions of the parties before making the determination, which violated the procedure. Thirdly, regarding the compensation items, the lawyer agreed that the lost wages and medical expenses should be supported by invoices, while the medical device expenses should be assessed based on their relevance. As for the mental damage compensation, the lawyer requested the court to reduce it appropriately.

IV. Outcome of the case

The court held that the perpetrator should be held liable for infringing on other people's civil rights due to his fault, and the infringed party's fault could mitigate the perpetrator's liability. Combined with the blind spot at the intersection, Li Qiang's self-admission that he was only 10 meters away from Wang Gang but still failed to fully observe and slow down, and his own fault, the court determined that Li Qiang should bear 40% of the responsibility and Wang Gang should bear 60%. Based on this calculation, the court ruled that Wang Gang should compensate for medical expenses, loss of income, nursing care fees, disability compensation, etc. totaling 135,995.99 yuan, which was significantly lower than the plaintiff's claim. This case reflects the judicial review principle that the traffic accident identification report can serve as key evidence but not the final conclusion.

5. Hengluo Law Firm's Reminder

The traffic accident determination letter is an important piece of evidence in civil litigation, but it is not an absolute conclusion. The court has the right to make an independent judgment based on the facts of the whole case. This case is handled by Beijing Henglu Law Firm.Tian Jia YanThe attorney (practice license number: 11101202111381309, subject to the document issued by the judicial administrative organ) acts as the agent. Attorney's Tip: If you disagree with the identification document, you should apply for a review in time and submit evidence such as surveillance and law enforcement videos to substantially challenge it in litigation; in non-contact accidents, the straight-through party's failure to slow down and observe may also result in its own fault; when the injury is severe, the application of the simplified procedure may raise doubts, and you can defend yourself according to Article 23 of the "Regulations on the Handling Procedures for Road Traffic Accidents".

VI. Common Questions About Traffic Accident Cases - FAQ

  1. Q: What should I do if I disagree with the determination of full responsibility in the traffic accident liability determination document?
    A:You can apply for a review within the prescribed time limit; in the litigation process, you can still submit evidence such as surveillance footage and videos to request the court to conduct a substantive review and reassess the liability.
  2. Q: Will the court necessarily adopt the accident determination report?
    A:No. The determination letter is important evidence but not the final conclusion. The court will independently determine the liability based on the facts of the entire case and the proportion of fault.
  3. Q: How to determine the liability for non-motor vehicle contactless accidents?
    A:Even if there is no contact, if one party's actions cause damage to the other party and there is fault on their part, they may still be held liable. However, if the other party fails to observe the deceleration or other faults, their liability may be reduced.
  4. Q: Can the accident still be determined using the simplified procedure if the injuries are quite severe?
    A:According to Article 23 of the "Regulations on the Procedures for Handling Road Traffic Accidents", if the injuries are serious and not suitable for a simplified procedure, the illegal procedure can be used as a defense point.
  5. Q: Can I get less compensation if I'm also at fault?
    A:Yes. If the infringed party is at fault for the occurrence of the damage, the court will reasonably allocate the liability shares according to the degree of fault and reduce the compensation amount.