Case Introduction

      The plaintiff, Mr. Wang, claimed that he got off the bus and got on through the back door, but the bus driver did not wait for him to fully enter the car and stand firmly before starting the vehicle, resulting in his own injury. According to the traffic management department, the bus driver is fully responsible for the accident. Mr. Wang filed a lawsuit in court, demanding that the bus company and insurance company bear full compensation responsibility.

     The defendant bus company argued that Mr. Wang did indeed take a bus operated by him, but he grabbed it from the back door when the bus left, resulting in the accident, which is inconsistent with the facts stated in the traffic accident liability determination letter. Mr. Wang's act of grabbing it from the back door is at fault and should bear 50% of the responsibility.

      The defendant's insurance company argued that the situation, reason, and proportion of responsibility that Mr. Wang should bear when he fell were consistent with the opinion of the public transportation company. In addition, Mr. Wang does not fall within the scope of third-party insurance, but should fall within the scope of vehicle personnel transportation insurance.

       During the trial of the case, the bus company submitted video footage from the time of the incident, which showed that the vehicle in question was parked at the bus station, and passengers got off from the rear door. After the passengers got off, the rear door of the vehicle began to close (the vehicle did not start), and Mr. Wang got on from that door (while the door was still in the process of closing, Mr. Wang held onto the door handle with his right hand, stepped onto the carriage with his right foot, and left foot on the ground). Subsequently, the vehicle started, and Mr. Wang was taken over outside the car.

Court Trial

      After trial, the court found that there is a dispute between the two parties regarding the proportion of liability and the application of insurance in this case. Regarding the proportion of responsibility, firstly, the responsibility determination involved in the traffic accident liability determination letter does not equal the responsibility determination of civil infringement. The former focuses on the causal relationship between traffic violations and traffic accidents, while the latter focuses on the causal relationship between fault behavior and damage consequences. Moreover, according to the in car surveillance footage submitted by the bus company, it can also be confirmed that the accident process stated in the "Traffic Accident Liability Determination Letter (Simplified)" in this case is inconsistent with the actual accident process. Secondly, based on the incident process displayed by the in car monitoring, when Mr. Wang attempted to board the vehicle in question, the door was the passenger exit door and was in the process of being closed. In this situation, the risks associated with boarding should be foreseeable. Mr. Wang had the ability and conditions to take corresponding avoidance measures, but he did not take them, indicating that he was at fault. Finally, bus drivers have a duty of care for safe driving, but if they start the vehicle before the doors are fully closed and fail to notice Mr. Wang's boarding behavior, it is also a fault. Based on the magnitude and causal factors of both parties, it is determined that Mr. Wang bears 20% of the responsibility, and the bus driver bears 80% of the responsibility. Meanwhile, bus drivers are responsible for fulfilling their duties, and the corresponding responsibilities are borne by the bus company. Regarding the application of insurance, the identities of "passengers on board" and "third parties" can be transformed into each other, not fixed and unchanging. The basis for their mutual transformation should be whether the victim was outside the insured vehicle at the time of the accident. Although Mr. Wang is a person getting on the car, he was already outside the insured vehicle at the time of the accident and belongs to the identity of a "third party". Therefore, this case should apply third-party liability insurance. The court ultimately made the above judgment.

Judicial interpretation

        Buses are commonly used means of transportation for people, among which two unmanned ticketing buses are the most common. "Boarding at the front door and disembarking at the back door" is a common rule for taking this type of bus. If someone violates this rule by getting on the bus through the back door and getting injured, who should pay for the accident? How is the proportion of responsibility divided? How should insurance companies apply insurance terms?

       From the moment the passenger boarded the train, a contractual relationship was established with the carrier. Under this legal relationship, the carrier's obligations mainly include two aspects: first, to transport the passenger to the destination according to the agreed or reasonable time, that is, the obligation of reasonable transportation; The second is to bear the responsibility of ensuring the personal and property safety of passengers, that is, the carrier needs to take necessary measures to eliminate safety hazards, provide reminders and notifications of existing risk factors, and actively fulfill rescue obligations after danger occurs. If the carrier fails to fully fulfill its security obligations, it is at fault and should examine whether there is a significant causal relationship between its breach of obligations and the consequences of the damage. If there is a causal relationship, the carrier shall bear the relevant responsibility. On the other hand, for passengers, they should abide by traffic rules and order, reasonably anticipate relevant risks, and take measures to prevent them.

       In this case, although the traffic accident determination document records that Mr. Wang is not responsible, the document belongs to the category of official document evidence. The parties involved can provide opposite evidence to overturn the traffic accident determination document, but they bear the burden of proving that the content of the accident determination document is not true. The bus company has submitted a video of the incident, and the responsible party and proportion should be determined based on the incident situation displayed. As a fully civil actor, Mr. Wang has a duty of care for his own safety when riding. His behavior of getting on the car through the back door violated basic riding rules, and at that time, the car door was in a closed state within Mr. Wang's visible range. He anticipated potential dangers and had the ability to prevent them, but allowed them to occur. In addition, Mr. Wang did not inform the driver in advance and obtain consent to submit evidence to prove that he was at fault for the damage before boarding the car through the rear door. On the other hand, the driver has a highly cautious duty to pay attention to the personal safety of passengers while driving the vehicle. For passengers boarding through the rear door, the driver can observe them through in car surveillance videos and external rearview mirrors. In this case, the driver was careless in observing before closing the rear door and failed to timely detect Mr. Wang boarding through the rear door before starting the vehicle, failing to fulfill the necessary duty of care and being the main fault for the accident.

       In addition to compulsory traffic insurance, motor vehicles are also covered by other types of insurance in insurance companies, such as commercial third-party liability insurance, onboard personnel transportation insurance, theft and rescue insurance, etc. This case involves the application of commercial third-party liability insurance and onboard personnel transportation insurance. As the name suggests, the key to their application lies in defining the scope of "third parties" and "personnel on board". The "onboard personnel" and "third parties" involved in motor vehicle insurance contracts are both temporary identities in specific time and space, and the two can be transformed due to changes in specific time and space. In judicial practice, the scope of defining the two is often judged after distinguishing personnel into drivers and passengers. According to the basic principles of tort law, if the infringer and the victim belong to the same person, regardless of the subjective malice of the perpetrator, the damage result should be borne by the perpetrator. When a driver, as the operator of a vehicle, experiences a traffic accident due to their own fault, such as getting off the car to rest without applying the handbrake, resulting in being hit and injured by a slipping vehicle, although the driver was outside the car at the time of the accident, as the insured, they cannot be transformed into a "third party" and cannot apply the relevant provisions of compulsory traffic insurance and commercial third-party liability insurance. For passengers, the key to determining their identity lies in analyzing their location when a traffic accident occurred and the cause of the accident. In this case, although Mr. Wang stepped on the rear car door with one foot, his injury was caused by being overturned by a vehicle and being crushed by the rear wheels of the vehicle, which belongs to the situation of a second collision with the vehicle. And Mr. Wang was outside the car during traffic, so he belongs to the "third party" status in the insurance terms.

       This article is transferred from the WeChat official account of "Beijing Haidian Court". Thank you.