On June 20th, 2006, 165438+ An old lady was waiting at a bus stop in Shuiximen Square, Nanjing. People came and went, and she was knocked down and broke. It was identified that she was disabled at grade eight. The old lady identified the hitter as Peng Yu, a young man who just got off the bus, and sued the court for compensation of 6,543,800 yuan. Peng Yu said that when he got off the bus, he saw the old lady fall down and went to help her. On September 4th, 2007, the court of first instance held that both parties to the accident were not at fault, and according to the principle of fairness, it ruled that Peng Yu should pay the victim appropriate compensation of * * * 45,876.6 yuan. Subsequently, the two sides reached a settlement agreement during the second trial and finally closed the case by settlement.

In this case, netizens almost overwhelmingly support Peng Yu, feeling that it is difficult to be a good person. There is a heated debate about whether to help an old man who falls down in the future.

Case 2: Tianjin Xu Yunhe case.

On 2011August 16, Xu Yunhe, the owner of Tianjin, helped Mrs. Wang who fell over the guardrail illegally, but was accused by Mrs. Wang of self-mutilation. Later, it was sentenced by Tianjin Hongqiao District People's Court 108606 yuan. The reason for the court's decision is that "the owner found Mrs. Wang as a pedestrian only four or five meters in this short distance, and suddenly found that the vehicle was coming to her, which would inevitably lead to panic and confusion, and she would definitely be affected by oncoming vehicles when she fell to the ground."

On August 22, the second trial was held, and many people gathered at the gate of the court who asked to attend. They supported Xu Yunhe almost overwhelmingly. When Mrs. Wang walked out of the court, the family planned to take a taxi home, and the taxi refused to take it. The driver claimed that he was afraid of being hit by porcelain.

Case 3: The old man in Wuhan fell to the ground and died

On September 2nd, 2065438+0/kloc-0, Uncle Li, an 88-year-old man from Wuhan, fell down at the gate of the food market less than 100 meters away from home, and none of the onlookers dared to come forward to help. 1 hour later, the old man died of suffocation due to nosebleeds blocking the respiratory tract.

It is difficult for the relatives of Uncle Li to understand this: "Is there no one who dares to help after the old man falls to the ground?" Is the virtue of helping others lost like this? "Asked Uncle Li's child sadly. ......

Recently, there was another incident. The court found that the elderly who fell down should bear the main responsibility and be fined 70,000 yuan for compensation. It happened in Jinhua, Zhejiang, and the party concerned was a young man named Wu Jundong after 1990.

Traffic police on-site inspection conclusion: There is no factual basis to prove that Wu Jundong's tricycle hit the old man's motorcycle.

Basis of judgment of Jinhua Intermediate People's Court (original):

1, Wu Jundong himself admitted in the transcript of the first inquiry made by the traffic police department that he heard someone shouting after overtaking, and later called his father to tell him that an accident had happened. This transcript is true.

At the time of the incident, an eyewitness named Dai confirmed that when the front of the tricycle passed the front of the electric bicycle, but the rear of the bicycle did not, he saw the electric bicycle shake left and right twice. After that, the electric bicycle and the two old people in the car fell to the ground. The witness has nothing to do with both parties and witnessed the whole process, and his testimony is true.

3. The statements of the two victims, Hu and Dai Congqiu, are consistent, while Dai Congqiu's injuries are left knee deformity, swelling and pain, limited mobility, comminuted fracture of the distal left femur and fracture of the left patella, and the injury of his left leg is consistent with his stated accident situation.

4. According to the on-site investigation records and photos of the traffic police department, the road at the scene of the incident was straight and the line of sight was good. The steering and braking performance of Hu electric bicycle meets the safety technical standards after the technical inspection of the whole vehicle.

We know that the traffic police's on-site inspection conclusion is the only legal basis for the court to deal with traffic accidents. Of course, the court considered it necessary to conduct an inquest again; However, the court's inquest has an indispensable premise: the scene still exists and is well preserved. In the case of China, China's preconditions obviously no longer exist. This is also the rule that all traffic accidents are transferred to the court litigation stage; He is, that is to say, the starting point of legislation is to take the conclusion of traffic police investigation as the only legal basis for court proceedings.

Since the conclusion of the traffic police at the first time cannot prove the nature or distribution of responsibility, what should the court do? According to the principle of fairness, at best, both parties bear 50% responsibility; It is inappropriate for the court to allocate responsibility according to severity or priority; In other words, this is wrong.

Let's analyze the four judgment bases of the court one by one, and whether they are established in evidence theory:

1, about "Wu Jundong himself admitted in the transcript of the first inquiry made by the traffic police department that he heard someone shouting after overtaking, and later called his father to tell him that there had been an accident. This record has real credibility. "

This is a very typical "free evaluation of evidence" beyond the judge's "discretion". A, "I heard someone shouting after overtaking" has two possibilities: one is to hit someone; The other is that you didn't hit anyone (the reason for "shouting" is very complicated). B, "Call my father and tell me something is wrong" completely conforms to the psychological characteristics of people of this age group after 90 who make the first judgment in case of emergency. Do not have the probative force of litigation evidence. C, if the court takes this "truthfulness and credibility" as litigation evidence, it is rash and wrong.

2. About "At the time of the incident, an eyewitness named Dai confirmed that when the front of the tricycle overtook the electric bicycle, the rear of the bicycle did not overtake it. He saw the electric bicycle shaking left and right twice. After that, the electric bicycle and two old people in the car fell to the ground. The witness has nothing to do with both parties and witnessed the whole process, and his testimony is true. "

Dai, the only "witness", said in his later "testimony" that "I didn't see the beating of the old man", which was inconsistent and not enough to prove.

3. About "the statements of the two victims, Hu and Dai Congqiu, are consistent, while Dai Congqiu's injuries are left knee deformity, swelling and pain, limited mobility, comminuted fracture of the distal left femur and fracture of the left patella, and the injury of his left leg is consistent with his stated accident situation".

This is an important plot and detail. Dai elderly people are all injured in their left legs: a, if Wu Jundong's tricycle is on the left side, if he directly rubs the Dai elderly people, his left leg will have serious skin trauma and muscle injury; But this forensic appraisal has no conclusion in this regard. B. If the tricycle is on the right side of the old man, it means that these injuries are caused by the old man's motorcycle falling to the left. Then, there are two possibilities for Wu Jundong to hit the elderly: A, hit it; B, there was no collision (it is entirely possible that the old man fell to the ground and was injured because of fright and improper operation when overtaking).

4. About "According to the on-site investigation records and photos of the traffic police department, the road at the scene of the incident was straight and the line of sight was good. Hu electric bicycle has been tested by vehicle technology, and its steering and braking performance meet safety technical standards. "

The traffic police clearly determined that the collision was "no evidence"; The forensic doctor did not adopt this legal autopsy conclusion; On the contrary, it is no problem to quote the motorcycle "condition" of the elderly who have nothing to do with the collision. That's ridiculous.

In fact, whether it is the traffic police or the court, according to the third item and the situation on the spot, it is entirely possible to judge whether it is a collision or a responsibility allocation.

This kind of case is dual to the trend of social morality: advancing or retreating; Look carefully, then be careful.