Why was the groom brought to court after a wedding car caused death?

The originally festive day was overshadowed by an unexpected car accident. Mr. Wang, a citizen of Shifang, encountered such a worrying situation.

Mr. Wang is an employee of Sichuan Hengfengjie Automobile Sales and Service Co., Ltd. On the day of the wedding, the company provided Mr. Wang with 10 new Zotye T600 cars for sale to form a wedding convoy. Mr. Wang invited his friend Zuo Fang (pseudonym) ) drives one of the wedding cars.

While driving, a traffic accident occurred in the wedding car driven on the left, resulting in one death. The left party took full responsibility for the accident. The Zhongjiang County Court found in the first instance that the car sales company should bear 70% of the liability for compensation, and the groom should bear 30% of the liability for compensation. The person on the left is an unpaid helper and will be punished without compensation. Unsatisfied with the verdict, the car sales company has now appealed.

?The focus of the trial: Both sides argued fiercely on three focus issues

?Focus 1: Wedding or promotion?

During the trial, Mr. Wang said that his wedding ceremony was organized by the company. "This is a benefit provided by the company to its employees. It also promotes the company's vehicle brand. I should not bear responsibility."

The car sales company stated that on the day of the incident, a vehicle borrowing relationship was formed between the company and Mr. Wang. “Since the car has purchased compulsory traffic insurance, there was no fault in the borrowing process. As the owner of the vehicle, "We should not be held responsible." As for Mr. Wang's claim that the event was organized by the company, the sales company said that on the day of the incident, the composition and arrangement of the wedding fleet, the starting and ending locations, the running route, and even the running speed were all determined by the company that held the wedding. Arrangements for newcomers. Therefore, the vehicle involved in the incident was under the actual control of Mr. Wang at the time, and the car sales company was not the actual user of the motor vehicle involved.

In addition, regarding the slogan "Zotey T600 Wedding Team Sichuan Hengfengjie 4S Store" posted on the car body, the car sales company stated that grammatically speaking, the focus of the slogan is "Wedding Team" and the other prefixes They are only used to describe and modify. "More importantly, the above-mentioned car body slogans are funded by Mr. Wang and arranged for their production and posting. The car body slogans are only used by the couple to enhance the wedding atmosphere and do not have commercial promotional purposes."

Ultimately, the court of first instance found that the cause of this traffic accident was that the car sales company took advantage of employee marriages to use the new cars for sale for the welfare of internal employees and during marketing activities.

? Focus 2: What is the identity of the left person?

Why did you drive the wedding car that day? Zuo Fang said that he was a staff member of a car sales company, and "driving was arranged by the company. It was an official act, and the company should bear the liability for compensation." The groom, Mr. Wang, said that Zuo Fang was not invited by himself.

The sales company said that Zuo Fang had no labor contract relationship with the company and was not an employee of the company. The vehicle involved in the accident was borrowed by Mr. Wang, an employee, and the driver on the left was arranged by Mr. Wang.

In the end, the court of first instance determined that Zuo Fang’s participation in driving that day was “at the invitation of Mr. Wang and with the permission of the company.”

Focus 3: Are red envelopes considered remuneration?

It is worth mentioning that on the day of the incident, in accordance with local customs, Mr. Wang paid a red envelope of more than 200 yuan to each of the wedding car drivers, including the one on the left. The nature of the red envelope has also become a focus of controversy. Among them, the car sales company said that the red envelope was in the nature of labor remuneration. "The red envelope was paid by the newcomer, and its purpose was to thank the driver for the help. Although this is different from general labor remuneration, it takes into account other people who did not provide driving services." This financial return cannot be obtained, therefore, the red envelope is in the nature of labor remuneration.”

The first instance ruling held that the two beneficiaries of the unpaid help should be held responsible

The Zhongjiang County Court found in the first instance that this traffic accident occurred. The cause was that a car sales company took advantage of employee marriages to use the new cars for sale for internal employee benefits and conduct marketing campaigns. The person on the left was invited by Mr. Wang, but the car sales company did not explicitly refuse, which should be regarded as permission. Therefore, the left driver provides free assistance to the car sales company. The car sales company shall be responsible for the damage caused by the left party.

In addition, the Zhongjiang County Court also stated that because the accident occurred at a special time and place on the way back to Zhongjiang from the wedding attendees, Mr. Wang benefited greatly from this driving behavior. Therefore, after compulsory traffic insurance sub-limit compensation, Mr. Wang shall bear 30% of the liability for the shortfall, and the automobile sales company shall bear 70% of the liability for compensation.

Those who work as unpaid helpers will be punished by criminal penalties and will no longer be liable for civil compensation.

According to statistics, this accident caused an economic loss of more than 680,000 yuan per day. In addition to the compulsory traffic insurance compensation of 114,300 yuan, among the two civil entities that were found liable, Mr. Wang had to pay nearly 170,000 yuan, and the car sales company had to pay nearly 400,000 yuan. Unsatisfied with the first-instance verdict, the car sales company has now filed an appeal.