2026年2月13日，最高人民法院发布第48批指导性案例（指导性案例268-272号）。这是最高人民法院首 次发布道路交通安全刑事专题指导性案例。 广东省茂名市中级人民法院于2022年7月28日作出（2021）粤09刑初71号刑事附带民事判决：被告人严 某聪犯以危险方法危害公共安全罪，判处死刑，剥夺政治权利终身（其他判项略）。宣判后，严某聪以 其行为构成交通肇事罪等为由，提出上诉。广东省高级人民法院于2023年10月31日作出（2022）粤刑终 1036号刑事裁定：驳回上诉，维持原判，依法报请最高人民法院核准。最高人民法院于2025年1月20日 作出刑事裁定，依法核准被告人严某聪死刑。 【基本案情】 2021年8月21日晚，被告人严某聪从他人处购买毒品，并于22日1时许、4时许、7时许分三次吸食。22日 9时许，严某聪驾驶汽车行驶至广东省茂名市S280线某路段时，撞击驾驶摩托车的被害人杨某，致杨某 颅脑损伤合并创伤性休克死亡。为逃避法律追究，严某聪驾车加速逃离，在距上述现场约950米处，又 连续冲撞驾驶摩托车的被害人杨某梅、吴某、梁某和驾驶汽车的冯某，速度高达99公里/小时，致杨某 梅颅脑损伤死亡、吴某创伤性 ...

川观新闻记者 王培哲 张庭铭 演员金晨去年的一场交通事故，近日引发社会关注。这件事有了最新进展——日前，浙江政务服务网公 开的处罚决定书显示，金某实施造成致人轻微伤或者财产损失的交通事故后逃逸，尚不构成犯罪的行 为，决定给予金某罚款1500元的行政处罚。 为啥金晨交通肇事逃逸，只罚1500块？背后有哪些法律知识？小铭今天就给你来切一切。 首先，我们来说下啥是交通肇事逃逸。根据公安部《道路交通事故处理程序规定》，交通肇事逃逸，是 指发生道路交通事故后，当事人为逃避法律责任，驾驶或者遗弃车辆逃离道路交通事故现场以及潜逃藏 匿的行为。 就目前通报的情况来看，金晨的事故并没有造成上面提到的这些严重后果，所以不构成交通肇事罪。因 此，尽管金晨存在逃逸行为，仍属于行政违法范畴，不触犯刑法。 按照我国道路交通安全法中的规定，造成交通事故后逃逸，尚不构成犯罪的，由公安机关交通管理部门 处二百元以上二千元以下罚款。所以，罚金晨1500元是合法的。另外，按照《道路交通安全违法行为记 分管理办法》，金晨还可能面临扣6分的行政处罚。 对于这件事，你怎么看？欢迎在评论区留言。 根据警方通报，金晨驾车发生道路交通事故后，未在现场等待交警 ...

Core Viewpoint - The court sentenced Liao Mouyu to death with a two-year reprieve for endangering public safety, resulting in the deaths of three individuals due to reckless driving during a peak traffic period [1][2][8]. Summary by Relevant Sections Incident Details - On October 2, 2024, Liao Mouyu drove an electric vehicle at high speed through a busy intersection, leading to a fatal collision with a family crossing the street, resulting in the immediate deaths of three individuals: Hu (31 years old), Wang (30 years old), and Hu (under 1 year old) [1][10]. Legal Findings - The court found that Liao's actions constituted a serious violation of traffic safety regulations, as he knowingly drove at excessive speeds in a densely populated area, which posed a significant risk to public safety [2][5]. - The court determined that Liao's behavior was characterized by indirect intent, as he did not actively seek to harm the victims but acted recklessly under emotional distress [6][8]. Sentencing Rationale - The court's decision to impose a death sentence with a two-year reprieve was based on the severity of the crime, the particularly serious consequences, and Liao's acknowledgment of his actions post-incident, which constituted a form of self-surrender [7][8]. - The court emphasized that Liao's actions were not merely negligent but demonstrated a blatant disregard for public safety, especially given the context of driving during a holiday peak period [5][8]. Public and Legal Reactions - The victims' family expressed a strong desire for justice, indicating they would pursue an appeal against the sentence, reflecting the societal impact and sensitivity surrounding the case [16].

Core Points - The article discusses a tragic incident in Beijing where a driver opened a car door without checking for oncoming traffic, resulting in the death of a cyclist [1][4][6] - The driver, Zhao, was found fully responsible for the accident and was later charged with traffic manslaughter [8][12] - Legal implications of "dooring" incidents are highlighted, including potential criminal charges and insurance liability [19][21] Group 1: Incident Details - The accident occurred on May 21, when a white car parked illegally opened its door, causing a cyclist to crash and sustain severe injuries [1][3] - The cyclist, Zhang, suffered critical brain injuries and died four days later despite medical efforts [4][6] - Zhao, the driver, was found to have parked in a no-parking zone and failed to check for traffic before opening the door, violating traffic safety laws [6][10] Group 2: Legal Proceedings - The case was prosecuted by the Beijing Shunyi District People's Procuratorate, leading to a court hearing on October 16, 2025 [8][12] - Zhao admitted to his actions in court, and the court ruled that his behavior constituted traffic manslaughter, sentencing him to one year and two months in prison [12][18] - Legal experts noted that in severe cases of "doorings," the responsible party could face various charges depending on the circumstances [14][16] Group 3: Insurance and Liability - The Supreme People's Court issued a draft opinion to clarify liability in "dooring" incidents, stating that both drivers and passengers can be held responsible [19][21] - The draft allows victims to claim insurance from the vehicle's liability coverage without being hindered by the passenger's status [21][25] - Insurance companies are granted the right to seek compensation from passengers who exhibit gross negligence, balancing victim compensation and risk management [25][27] Group 4: Prevention Methods - The article suggests methods to prevent "dooring" incidents, such as the "Dutch reach" technique, which involves using the hand furthest from the door to open it [28][30] - Another recommended method is the "two-stage door opening," where the door is first opened slightly to check for traffic before fully opening [31][33] - Pedestrians and cyclists are advised to maintain a safe distance from parked vehicles and be cautious when approaching them [35]

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the legal implications and recent changes in the handling of drunk driving cases in China, emphasizing the need for stricter enforcement and public awareness as the holiday season approaches [1][2]. Summary by Sections Legal Framework - Drunk driving can lead to various charges, including a maximum of 6 months of detention for dangerous driving, up to 15 years for traffic accident crimes, or even death penalty for endangering public safety [1]. - The Supreme People's Court and other authorities have optimized the standards for drunk driving offenses, resulting in a significant decrease in case occurrences and prosecutions [2]. Changes in Drunk Driving Standards - The new guidelines introduced in late 2023 adjust the previous strict liability standard of "over 80 mg" to a more nuanced approach considering specific circumstances [2]. - Blood alcohol content (BAC) thresholds are now categorized into three ranges: 80-150 mg (no criminal charges if no aggravating circumstances), 150-180 mg (eligible for probation), and over 180 mg (subject to imprisonment) [2]. Case Examples - **Case 1**: A driver, after causing an accident and fleeing, was charged with endangering public safety due to reckless behavior, resulting in a sentence of 1 year and 8 months [3]. - **Case 2**: A driver who caused two accidents and fled was sentenced to 5 months of detention and fined 9,000 RMB, highlighting the strict penalties for repeat offenders [4][5]. - **Case 3**: A driver with a BAC of 103.1 mg, who had a prior drunk driving offense, was sentenced to 1 month and 15 days of detention, demonstrating the impact of prior offenses on sentencing [6]. - **Case 4**: A driver who attempted to evade police checks and collided with a police vehicle was sentenced to 1 month and 15 days of detention, emphasizing the seriousness of obstructing law enforcement [7][8]. - **Case 5**: A driver who misled police about his identity and had a BAC of 100 mg was sentenced to 1 month of detention, showcasing the consequences of obstructing investigations [9][10]. - **Case 6**: A driver operating a vehicle not permitted by their license was sentenced to 2 months of detention, reinforcing the importance of adhering to licensing regulations [11].

Core Viewpoint - The incident involving a Xiaomi SU7 car in Henan, which resulted in four deaths and two injuries, has sparked significant public discussion regarding the legal implications and the handling of the case by authorities [1][3]. Group 1: Incident Details - On February 11, 2025, a 28-year-old driver, Wang, was involved in a high-speed collision while driving a blue Xiaomi car at approximately 133-134 km/h, violating traffic laws and causing a multi-vehicle accident [1]. - The accident resulted in four fatalities and two injuries, with the victims including a family of six in the Honda vehicle involved in the crash [1]. Group 2: Legal Proceedings - The local government confirmed that Wang is fully responsible for the accident, and criminal proceedings have been initiated against him, with the court hearings already underway [1]. - Wang's defense included a claim of financial hardship, which was presented through a document from a village official, although this document was not an official poverty certificate [1][3]. Group 3: Legal Expert Opinions - Legal expert Zhao Guangxu noted that the distinction between charges of traffic manslaughter and endangering public safety hinges on the driver's intent and behavior [3]. - Zhao emphasized that claims of financial hardship are unlikely to significantly influence the court's decision, as they are considered discretionary rather than statutory factors in criminal cases [3].