A man's claim for a traffic accident in Guangdong was rejected, and he insisted on winning the appeal: save people first, no problem! What happened afterwards?

With the rapid increase in the number of motor vehicles, various traffic accidents emerge one after another. Then, after the traffic accident, should the accident party send the injured for treatment first, or stay at the original protection site and wait for the traffic police to handle it and make insurance survey and claim settlement? Once you leave the scene, can the insurance company refuse compensation on this ground?

Mr. Zheng lives in a town in Mazhang District, Zhanjiang City, Guangdong Province. He has his own car. Like many car owners now, Mr. Zheng usually travels by car instead of walking, and pays great attention to traffic rules. However, although Mr. Zheng drove carefully, he was unfortunately involved in a car accident and fell into an insurance contract dispute for several years, which made him very depressed.

On the day of the incident, Mr. Zheng continued to drive in a section of Mawei District. At a crossroads, Mr. Wang who came home from work pushed an electric bicycle from the side. Because Mr. Zheng only wanted to drive forward, Mr. Wang was not found on the road, and the two sides collided, causing Xie Mou, a passenger on Mr. Wang's electric car, to fall to the ground and be injured.

After the accident, Mr. Zheng quickly stopped on the spot and got off to check the scene. Because Xie was seriously injured, Mr. Zheng quickly called the 120 emergency center. However, due to the long waiting time, Mr. Zheng sent Xie to the car and sent him to the hospital for emergency treatment before the ambulance arrived at the scene. On the way to the hospital, Mr. Zheng called the police.

After settling down, Mr. Zheng drove back to the original place to cooperate with the traffic police investigation. The traffic police said that Mr. Zheng caused an accident due to improper driving operation, and Xie was assessed as eight-level disability after treatment. This involves traffic accident compensation, so it is natural to go to court. Subsequently, Xie sued an insurance company insured by Mr. Zheng, Mr. Wang and Mr. Zheng for compensation.

During the trial, Mr. Zheng and Mr. Wang had no objection to the compensation, but the insurance company believed that Mr. Zheng failed to protect the scene of the accident according to law after the accident, failed to call the police in time, and did not indicate the location when moving the accident vehicle. Because the scene changes, it is impossible to determine the insurance liability, and the insurance company should be exempted. However, Mr. Zheng said that he took photos when changing the scene, but Mr. Zheng has been unable to submit evidence.

Subsequently, the Machang District Court ruled that an insurance company compensated Xie125,979.37 yuan within the insurance limit of commercial third party liability insurance. The insurance company refused to accept it and appealed to Zhanjiang Intermediate People's Court, saying that "the insurance clause of commercial third party liability insurance stipulates that after the accident, if the driver drives the insured motor vehicle or abandons the insured motor vehicle and fails to take measures to leave the scene of the accident according to law, the insurer will not be responsible for personal injury, property loss and expenses caused by any reason."

After the second trial of Zhanjiang Intermediate People's Court, the insurance company was changed to exemption insurance within the limit of commercial third party liability insurance. This means that Xie's compensation should be borne by Mr. Zheng, the offender. Mr. Zheng was not convinced of this judgment and filed a retrial request with the Guangdong Provincial High Court.

So after a traffic accident, should we save people first or stay where we are and wait for the traffic police and insurance to deal with it? China's "Road Traffic Safety Regulations" stipulates that "when a traffic accident occurs on the road, the driver of the vehicle should stop immediately to protect the scene; If personal injury or death is caused, the driver of the vehicle shall immediately rescue the injured and report to the traffic police on duty or the traffic management department of the public security organ in time; If the scene is changed due to the rescue of the injured, the location shall be indicated. "

In other words, if the law supports saving people first, it can also change the scene, but it is necessary to call the police in time, indicate the location and keep the evidence on the scene. If the above procedures fail, it is not supported to change the on-site insurance claims without permission. However, the difficulty of this case is that although Mr. Zheng verbally said that he took the changed photos at that time, he failed to provide the above evidence, which is the main reason for losing the second trial.

However, another important fact of this case is that Mr. Zheng performed most of the above procedures after the accident, but did not specify the location when rescuing the wounded and changing the scene. Later, the traffic police department identified Mr. Zheng as the main responsible person. Because Mr. Zheng drove away from the scene, the responsibility for the accident could not be determined, and the proportion of responsibility that Mr. Zheng should bear was not increased.

Mr. Zheng really changed the scene to save people, and there is relevant evidence to prove it. If we insist on Mr. Zheng's full responsibility, the insurance company will be exempted from liability, which will form an illusion to the public. In future traffic accidents, no matter whether the injured person is dead or alive, the perpetrators will stay where they are, which invisibly delays the best opportunity to rescue the injured, and is also incompatible with the public order, good customs and core values advocated by the society.

Therefore, when judging this case, we should not judge it simply by legal effect, but by combining social effect and political effect. Although the insurance contract signed by the insurance company and Mr. Zheng has relevant exemption clauses, it does not mean that the exemption clauses conform to the socialist core values and public order and good customs, and life is more important than everything else. Any contract clause that violates the value of life should be revised.

According to the news released by the Guangdong Provincial High Court on 202 1 1 7, the court recently retried the case. The high court believes that Mr. Zheng should be encouraged to actively save people. In this case, Mr. Zheng's behavior of changing the scene was obviously slight, which did not lead to an improper increase in the insurance liability of the insurance company. The second trial found that the exemption of insurance companies did not meet the relevant legislative purposes, which was not conducive to highlighting the judicial ethical value and should be corrected. The high court finally revoked the judgment of the second instance and upheld the judgment of the first instance.

Mr. Zheng immediately stopped in the car accident to save people, ignoring the accident handling procedures and the contract agreement with the insurance company. However, Mr. Zheng's behavior should be advocated and encouraged, and the contract law also stipulates that contract clauses that violate other laws or public order and good customs should be regarded as invalid clauses. The Higher People's Court of Guangdong Province, in combination with relevant laws and regulations, explained and reasoned the law and revised the terms, which embodied the concept of judicial justice and the rule of law for the people.