转自：法治日报 □ 本报记者 徐伟伦 小改装暗藏大隐患、后排不系安全带扩大损失应自担、电动自行车上保险出了事故 有保障……近日，北京市西城区人民法院对外通报交通事故责任纠纷典型案例，聚焦交通出行中常见 的"坏习惯"和认知误区以案释法，助力营造"人人守法、路路平安"的公共交通环境。 《法治日报》记 者获悉，今年1月至11月，西城法院受理交通事故责任纠纷案件数量比去年同期增长32.03%，其中机动 车交通事故责任纠纷案件数量比去年同期增长27.1%，非机动车交通事故责任纠纷案件数量比去年同期 增长60.98%。对于当前此类案件数量总体呈现增长态势、非机动车交通事故责任纠纷案件占比增多、 涉案主体多元导致法律关系复杂等特点，西城法院建议，各方交通参与者应当自觉遵守交通法规、增强 自我保护意识，防范事故发生；保险公司应当充分发挥保险的风险分担功能，提供丰富且精准的产品供 给以满足社会需求；道路交通设施的养护管理单位、电动自行车行业组织及网约车、快递外卖等网络运 营平台，应当协同共治，构建安全和谐的道路交通环境。 超标改装暗藏隐患 （来源：法治日报） 侵权责任不应免除 赵某乘坐孙某驾驶的摩托车与方某驾驶的轿车相撞受伤， ...

Core Points - The Supreme People's Court of China is seeking public opinion on the interpretation of laws regarding traffic accident liability, with a deadline for feedback set for November 15 [1] - The draft clarifies that if a passenger opens a car door and causes harm, the insurance for the vehicle must cover the damages, as this action is classified as a risk associated with the vehicle's operation [3][4] - The draft also addresses liability in accidents involving electric bicycles and motor vehicles, emphasizing a comprehensive assessment of fault and damage when determining compensation [6] Group 1 - The draft states that if a passenger opens a car door and causes damage, the insurance company cannot refuse to pay based on the argument that the passenger is not an insured driver [3] - Legal experts highlight that this classification of the passenger's action as a risk of the vehicle's operation ensures victims can receive compensation promptly from the more financially capable party [4] - The draft proposes that in accidents between electric bicycles and motor vehicles, courts should consider the degree of fault, damage consequences, and the danger level of each vehicle when determining compensation [6] Group 2 - The draft specifies that in non-commercial vehicle accidents involving unpaid passengers, courts should evaluate the driver's major negligence based on accident reports and the driver's specific actions [8] - Legal experts note that this approach protects well-meaning drivers from excessive liability while ensuring that passengers' rights are safeguarded in cases of serious driver negligence [8]

Core Viewpoint - The Supreme People's Court of China is seeking public opinion on a draft interpretation regarding traffic accident liability, specifically addressing the issue of "door opening accidents" which have become a significant concern for road safety and insurance claims [1][2]. Group 1: Legal Framework and Responsibilities - The draft interpretation clarifies that if a passenger opens a car door and causes damage, the liability falls under the vehicle's responsibility, allowing victims to claim compensation from the vehicle's mandatory traffic accident liability insurance [3][4]. - The draft also states that insurance companies cannot refuse to compensate victims by claiming that the passenger is not an insured driver, thereby preventing common denial of claims [3][6]. Group 2: Impact on Insurance Practices - The proposed regulations are expected to reshape insurance claims processes and the overall insurance industry, prompting companies to reassess their commercial vehicle insurance policies and definitions related to insured drivers and vehicle usage [8][9]. - Insurance companies will need to establish internal standards for pursuing claims against passengers who are found to have significant fault in "door opening accidents," ensuring compliance with the new legal framework [8][9]. Group 3: Broader Implications - The draft interpretation aims to enhance the clarity of liability in "door opening accidents," which have been a persistent issue in urban road safety, thus facilitating quicker compensation for victims [5][6]. - The proposed changes reflect a broader effort to address ambiguities in traffic accident liability and insurance responsibilities, potentially leading to a more standardized and fair approach to traffic accident claims [8][9].

Group 1 - The Supreme People's Court of China released six typical cases of traffic accident liability disputes to guide safe and civilized travel, emphasizing the importance of traffic safety for the public [1] - The case of "opening the door" highlights the shared responsibility of drivers and passengers, where both parties must exercise caution to prevent accidents, resulting in compensation of over 240,000 yuan for the victim [1] - The ruling reinforces the role of insurance in protecting victims while also raising awareness among drivers and passengers about their responsibilities [1] Group 2 - In the case of "Zhao vs. Qian," the court reduced the driver's liability due to the passenger's failure to wear a seatbelt, establishing a precedent for shared responsibility in "good Samaritan" situations [2] - The rise of ride-hailing services has prompted discussions on the liability of platform companies in ensuring passenger safety during rides [2] - The case involving a ride-hailing driver who caused injury to a passenger led to the court holding the platform company liable, emphasizing the need for proper management and safety protocols [2] Group 3 - The increasing popularity of electric bicycles has raised concerns about traffic violations and accidents, prompting legal scrutiny on liability in such cases [3] - In the case of "He vs. Li," the electric bicycle rider was found fully responsible for an accident, highlighting the need for electric bicycle riders to be aware of traffic rules and responsibilities [3] - The court's decision to hold the electric bicycle rider accountable serves as a reminder for all road users to enhance their awareness of traffic regulations and safety [3]

Core Viewpoint - The Supreme People's Court of China has released six typical cases regarding traffic accident liability disputes, emphasizing the importance of timely and adequate relief for victims, reasonable determination of responsibilities among parties involved, and the need to enhance awareness of traffic rules among participants [1][2][3]. Group 1: Timely Relief for Victims - The increase in non-motorized vehicles, particularly electric bicycles, has led to more traffic accidents, necessitating a focus on ensuring victims receive timely and adequate compensation [1]. - In case 3, the court determined the liability of the electric bicycle driver for injuries caused to a motor vehicle driver, balancing the degree of fault and the nature of the vehicles involved to ensure victim relief and promote awareness among electric bicycle users [1][3]. Group 2: Reasonable Determination of Responsibilities - Traffic accident liability disputes involve multiple parties, including drivers, victims, passengers, insurance companies, and ride-hailing platforms, requiring courts to clarify legal relationships and accurately assign responsibility [2]. - In case 2, the court applied the principle of "good Samaritan" to reduce the driver's liability, encouraging a culture of mutual assistance while enhancing the driver's awareness of responsibility [2]. - In case 4, the court recognized the contractual relationship between passengers and ride-hailing platforms, holding the platform accountable for passenger injuries, thereby promoting safety management within the industry [2]. Group 3: Enhancing Awareness of Traffic Rules - Traffic rules are essential for reducing accidents and maintaining order, and all participants must adhere to them [3]. - In case 1, the court ruled that both the driver and passenger of a motor vehicle share responsibility for damages caused by the passenger opening the door, emphasizing the need for caution and awareness during such actions [3]. - In case 6, the court upheld administrative penalties against non-motorized vehicle drivers who violated traffic signals, reinforcing the importance of compliance with traffic regulations [3].