Electric vehicles are common means of transportation,
are spread throughout urban streets and rural areas.
Although the driving speed is slower than other motor vehicles,
may still cause traffic accidents if you are not careful.
Recently,
Xueyang Intermediate People's Court, Hunan Province, tried a case in which a minor drove an electric bike
hit an elderly man by a companion and killed him
Basic facts
One evening in January 2021, Xiaohao (14 years old) drove his own electric bike to Xiaoyong (15 years old)'s home to play. Soon, Xiaoyong suggested that he wanted to go to his grandmother's house. At Xiaohao's prompt, Xiaoyong found the key to Xiaohao's electric bicycle, and drove and took Xiaohao out of the door. On the way, I bumped into a pedestrian Grandma Yang, causing the traffic accident that injured Grandma Yang, Xiaohao and Xiaoyong and damaged the electric bicycle. After the incident, the traffic police department determined that Xiaoyong was fully responsible for the accident.
It was also found that Grandma Yang died after ineffective treatment and spent a total of 183,800 yuan on medical expenses. Forensic autopsy report records: "The cause of death should be a traffic accident that caused a severe craniocerebral injury."
The dispute arose because Grandma Yang's family and Xiaoyong and their guardians were inconsistent on the compensation. During the trial, Xiaoyong's father applied to add Xiaohao and his guardian as co-defendants, and the court approved it in accordance with the law.
Court judgment
Xiangyin County People's Court held after trial that this case was an accident in which the defendant Xiaoyong drove an electric bicycle (non-motor vehicle) and hit a pedestrian on the side of the road, causing him to be injured and died. It was a dispute over responsibility for a non-motor vehicle traffic accident.
Because Grandma Yang was hit and injured and died, it was caused by the defendant Xiaoyong's driving behavior. The damage consequences of Grandma Yang's injury and death have a direct causal relationship with the defendant Xiaoyong's driving behavior. Article 18, Paragraph 1 of the " Hunan Province Electric Bicycle Management Measures " stipulates that driving an electric bicycle on the road must be over 16 years old.
When a traffic accident occurred, Xiaoyong was under 16 years old. He was driving an electric bicycle on the road as a violation, and the traffic police department determined that he was fully responsible for the accident. Therefore, the defendant Xiaoyong obviously had major faults in this case and should bear the main fault liability for .
Xiaoyong's parents, as guardians, failed to fulfill their guardianship responsibilities, resulting in a traffic accident caused by a minor Xiaoyong driving an electric bicycle on the road in violation of regulations. Therefore, the part of the responsibility that Xiaoyong should bear should be borne by the guardian.
The electric bicycle driven by the defendant Xiaoyong was driven from the home of the defendant Xiaoyong. At the same time, Xiaohao did not stop Xiaoyong from driving the electric bicycle, and also handed the car key to Xiaoyong. Xiaohao's advance behavior has an indirect causal relationship with the occurrence of the traffic accident. According to Article 18, Paragraph 2 of the "Hunan Province Electric Bicycle Management Measures", driving an electric bicycle can only carry one minor under the age of 12, and those carrying minors under the age of 6 should use safety seats.
When an accident occurred, Xiao Hao was 14 years old. He illegally rode the back seat of the electric bicycle, which increased the risk of traffic accidents to a certain extent. Therefore, Xiao Hao also had certain faults in this case and should bear the corresponding fault liability. As the guardian, the defendant Xiaohao's parents failed to fulfill their guardianship responsibilities and neglected the vehicle management, which led to Xiaohao's illegal riding of bicycles and riding illegally. The part of the responsibility that the defendant Xiaohao should bear should be borne by his parents.
It was confirmed that Grandma Yang's medical expenses, nursing expenses, funeral expenses, death compensation, family members' mental damage compensation and other expenses totaled 824,200 yuan. Based on the facts of the case, the court finally found that the defendant Xiaoyong bears 60% of the compensation liability and the defendant Xiaohao bears 40% of the compensation liability.
Xiaohao and his parents believed that the traffic police department determined that Xiaoyong was fully responsible for the accident. Xiaohao was not responsible in the accident. Xiaohao should not bear civil compensation liability, so he appealed to Yueyang Intermediate People's Court.
After the trial, Yueyang Intermediate People's Court held that traffic accident liability determination is not completely equivalent to the determination of civil liability. Traffic Accident Identification Document is the main evidence on which the public security organs make administrative decisions on traffic accidents. Although it can be used as evidence in civil litigation, the traffic accident identification document cannot be used as the only evidence for the allocation of liability for civil tort damages. The degree of fault of the perpetrator in the infringement should be comprehensively analyzed in light of the case, and a comprehensive identification should be made based on the attribution principle of civil litigation.
In this case, although Xiaoyong and Xiaohao are underage and do not have the full civil capacity of , they can make reasonable choices about the mode of travel and the means of transportation during travel. They should be aware of common and general traffic laws and regulations. As guardians, Xiaoyong and Xiaohao's parents should provide necessary and sufficient management, reminders and precautions for their children's daily travel.
Yueyang Intermediate People's Court held that the first-instance judgment determined the facts clearly and the law was correctly applied. The judgment rejected the appeal and upheld the original judgment.
In recent years,
Minors driving electric cars in violation of regulations
Although there are real cases as "learning from the past",
still have many parents and children with luck,
ignore the danger of driving electric cars in violation of regulations.
0 The risk factor for driving an electric vehicle for minors
1
1
0 The speed of an electric bicycle is much faster than that of a bicycle, but the handling stability and the safety performance of the brake system are poor, which poses a greater safety risk.
2
Minors have weak safety awareness and know very little about traffic laws and regulations. When driving electric bicycles, they often experience violations such as going against the road, carrying people, occupying motor vehicle lanes at will, and changing lanes at will.
3
Minors are often young and energetic, and are fast in riding, and are even accompanied by some very dangerous movements, such as chasing, overtaking, playing and drifting, which greatly increases the risk factor of driving an electric bicycle.
4
0 Minors lack life experience, their psychological and physiological qualities are not mature enough, and they do not have enough adaptability when encountering emergencies, and they cannot take correct treatment methods in a timely manner.
During the summer vacation,
Please take care of the child,
Don’t let the tragedy happen to you!
(Yueyang Intermediate People's Court)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-