Pedestrian was hit and killed after running a red light. Do motor vehicle drivers who are driving normally need compensation?
For a long time, as long as a pedestrian was hit and killed, no matter whether the motor vehicle driver was at fault, it was necessary to compensate. Even if a pedestrian ran a red light and was hit by a normal motor vehicle, traffic police often tended to be weak (peeders, non-motor vehicles) when determining the responsibility for the accident. At that time, believed that "whoever is killed or injured is right" and "who should get compensation" . Not only pedestrians think so, but even some traffic police also determine this. Although the driver who drives normally feels a lot of grievances, he can only compensate him in the face of this situation.
According to Article 76 of the Road Traffic Safety Law: If a traffic accident occurs between a motor vehicle and a pedestrian, even if one of the motor vehicle is not at fault, it shall bear no more than 10% of the compensation liability. If the traffic accident is caused by a pedestrian's intentional collision with a motor vehicle, the motor vehicle party shall not bear the liability for compensation.
The reason for this regulation is mainly because in transportation activities, one side of the motor vehicle is in an advantageous position, and non-motor vehicles or pedestrians are at a disadvantage; in addition, motor vehicles are all purchased with compulsory insurance, and some are also insured with large amounts of commercial insurance. In this way, even if a traffic accident occurs, the insurance company of the motor vehicle will compensate within the coverage limit, which will protect the right of the disadvantaged party to obtain compensation.
Should compensation be made for the excess? Funiu believes that pedestrians run red lights and are hit by a normal motor vehicle and died. Pedestrians run red lights are the party at fault. The driver of the normal motor vehicle is not at fault and should not bear the liability for compensation. Because the current social environment is "The law cannot concessions to illegal" , which is a major principle, and the principle of "The law cannot concessions to illegal" is to maintain social fairness and justice. Since I have no fault, why should I take responsibility? Therefore, in the identification of traffic accidents, the traffic police must also firmly adhere to the principle of "law cannot concessions to illegal law", and cannot "whoever is killed or injured is right" and "whoever can make trouble is right", but they must dare to determine that motor vehicle drivers are not responsible in accordance with the facts and laws, and then do not bear compensation liability, so as to make our society more fair and just.
Do you think that a pedestrian was hit and killed, and the driver of a motor vehicle driving normally needs to bear the liability for compensation? Everyone is welcome to leave a message in the comment area to tell me, thank you everyone!
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-