Brief Description of the Case

    In November 2023, Zhao was driving a small car and had a rear-end collision with a ride-hailing vehicle that was in operation. The traffic police determined that Zhao was fully responsible, while the ride-hailing driver Qian was not at fault. On the fourth day after the accident, Qian sent the vehicle to the 4S store for repair. Three days later, the repair was completed and he left the store. After the insurance company made the claim, the two parties failed to reach an agreement on the loss of operating income during the period of suspension. Qian then filed a lawsuit against Zhao at the Huaiyin District Court of Jinan City, demanding a total of 1,350 yuan in compensation for the suspension loss, which was 450 yuan per day during the maintenance period.
    Zhao believes that Qian has not submitted stable and genuine income proof and thus cannot prove his daily operating income of 450 yuan. Furthermore, the maintenance working hours are only 7 hours, but it is claimed that the operation will be suspended for 3 days, which is also unreasonable in terms of time. It was further pointed out that the vehicle was sent for repair on the fourth day, which raised suspicion of "intentional delay".

Court Hearing

    Such cases are not uncommon in practice, and the determination and compensation of "downtime losses" often become the focus of disputes. Qian's claim for "losses from suspension of operation" is based on relevant legal grounds. According to Article 12, Paragraph 3 of the "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", for vehicles engaged in freight, passenger transport and other business activities that cannot operate due to traffic accidents, the "reasonable losses from suspension of operation" should be supported by the court in accordance with the law. However, although claiming "downtime losses" has legal basis, not all vehicles that have been involved in accidents can claim "downtime losses". Two conditions must be met: First, the vehicle must have legal operating qualifications, such as being registered as a ride-hailing vehicle, taxi, or freight vehicle. Second, the loss must be reasonable, that is, linked to the maintenance cycle, and valid evidence can be provided to prove it. As the loss due to the suspension of operation is an indirect loss and is not covered by the compulsory traffic insurance, the court ruled that the infringer, Zhao Mou, should bear the liability for compensation for the loss due to the suspension of operation. In this case, although the vehicle driven by Zhao was not registered under his name, Zhao and the actual owner of the vehicle were in a lease relationship. The actual owner of the vehicle was not at fault for the occurrence of the traffic accident. Therefore, the infringer should bear the tort liability.
    Another point of contention in this case is that Zhao believes that the repairman's working hours are only seven hours and should not be recognized as a three-day suspension of operation. What was emphasized in the court's trial was the actual time of "entering and leaving the factory", rather than merely looking at the working hours. Even if there is no actual construction during the vehicle's maintenance period, it is still in an unoperable state due to waiting for spare parts and queuing for repairs. The downtime losses during this period are also actual. Regarding Zhao's mention that Qian "deliberately delayed" the car repair until the fourth day, but failed to provide sufficient and valid evidence to prove it. On the contrary, Qian submitted the wechat records with Zhao after the accident, which indicated that it was Zhao who had delayed handling the accident and reporting the insurance claim. The court ultimately ruled that a three-day suspension of operation was reasonable. Although Qian provided the platform transaction records and some bank records, they could not truly reflect his daily net income situation and lacked stability. The court referred to the "Average Annual Salary of On-the-job Employees in Shandong Province's Transportation Industry in 2023" of 116,187 yuan and converted it to 318 yuan per day, totaling 955 yuan for three days. This is an industry average reference method. If the evidence provided is sufficient, compensation shall be made based on actual income. If the evidence is insufficient, the court can only handle the matter at its discretion by referring to industry data.
    Ultimately, the court ruled in accordance with the law that Zhao should compensate Qian 955 yuan for the losses caused by the suspension of transportation. After the judgment was made, both parties accepted the judgment and ceased the lawsuit.

Judges Say

    In recent years, ride-hailing services have become an important way for people to travel and have attracted a large number of practitioners to join in. However, with the frequent occurrence of disputes over online car-hailing accidents, the compensation rules have gradually become more complex. Especially as drivers act as "operators", they are involved in multiple legal aspects such as loss determination, platform responsibility, and insurance coverage, which deserve everyone's attention.
    If a traffic accident occurs and a passenger in a ride-hailing vehicle is injured, who should be sought for compensation? If the passenger is the innocent party, his or her legitimate rights and interests should be protected. If the other vehicle is fully responsible, passengers can directly claim compensation from the other driver or their insurance company. If the ride-hailing driver is at fault, passengers can first claim compensation through the commercial insurance provided by the platform, or Sue the driver and the platform.
    In real life, some people work part-time as ride-hailing drivers but do not have an operation license. If an accident occurs, can they claim losses from the suspension of operation or lost wages? Strictly speaking, vehicles without operating qualifications are not eligible to claim "losses from suspension of operation". However, if a stable order-taking record is provided, which can prove the fact of its long-term operation, some courts may also support it at their discretion. However, it is suggested that everyone operate in accordance with laws and regulations to avoid difficulties in subsequent rights protection.
     Here are a few points to remind all ride-hailing drivers: First, it is essential to obtain the operating qualifications in accordance with the law to avoid the embarrassing situation of "incomplete licenses and no right to claim" in case of an accident. Secondly, in the event of a traffic accident, one should promptly call the police, contact the insurance company, have the vehicle repaired as soon as possible, and properly keep the repair records, the time of entry and exit from the factory, income certificates and other materials. Thirdly, claims should be based on facts. Speak based on the evidence available to avoid affecting the case trial due to inflated claims. Fourth, and most importantly, safety comes first. Civilized driving is not only responsible for passengers, but also for oneself and one's family.

This article is reprinted from the wechat official account "Shandong Higher People's Court". We express our gratitude here!