The passenger jumped into the car after drinking and was seriously injured. The driver was charged with a crime court: not guilty!

  At around 2 in the morning, two men took a taxi after drinking, and had a dispute with the taxi driver because of the fare problem.

Unexpectedly, while the vehicle was driving, one of the men jumped directly from the rear seat window and fell into a second-degree serious injury.

After the incident, the prosecution filed a public prosecution with the driver suspected of causing serious injury by negligence.

The reporter recently learned that after the case was heard by the Baiyun District Court of Guangzhou City, the driver was found not guilty in the first instance.

The prosecution refused to accept it and filed a protest.

The Guangzhou Intermediate Court upheld the driver’s acquittal after the second instance.

  Text/Guangzhou Daily All-Media Reporter Charter Correspondent Yun Faxuan

  Basic case:

  Injured by jumping from a car after getting drunk and taking a taxi

  At 2:28 on July 20, 2016, Deng and his friend Chen, who had just finished drinking in Yanjiang East Road, Yuexiu District, got into a taxi and the destination was Jiangxia Archway in Baiyun District.

After arriving at the destination, the taxi driver Li proposed a full fare of 51 yuan.

However, Deng and Chen said that the fare was too high. They believed that the taxi usually came in at most ten yuan, and the driver did not take them to Jiangxia Memorial Arch, so they refused to pay the fare and got off the bus and planned to leave.

The driver Li, who could not receive the fare, immediately got off the car to stop the two and dialed "110" to report to the police.

  While the three were waiting for the police to arrive, the driver Li said that they had taken the two to Jiangxia Memorial Archway, but Deng and Chen, who were drunk, said that this was not Jiangxia Memorial Archway, and the driver had taken the road to reach the destination. Only then gave the money and forcibly took the back seat of the taxi.

Li said: "I don't need money to send you back to the place of origin."

  When the vehicle was passing the junction of Guangyun Road and Huangshi East Road, Deng suddenly asked to get off the car and opened the right rear door next to his seat. Chen stopped him, and Li locked the door control device and continued driving.

  After that, Li continued to drive through the traffic post of Huangshi East Road into Yuncheng West Road. Deng asked to get off again, but Li ignored him and continued driving.

When the vehicle was approaching a traffic light in front, Deng suddenly jumped out of the car from the open window of the right rear door, and Chen asked Li to stop when he found out.

Li stopped the car after driving for a few hundred meters, let Chen get off, and then drove away.

  It was identified that the degree of injury caused by Deng’s jump from the car was classified as serious injury.

The next day, after Li received the notification from the traffic police department, he went to the case and accepted the handling by himself.

In this regard, the Baiyun District Procuratorate alleged that the driver Li’s behavior should be investigated for criminal responsibility for the crime of negligence causing serious injury, and the court should be sentenced in accordance with the law.

Li said, “I didn’t know that Deng jumped off the car. It was another passenger who told me that I didn’t stop and deal with it because I was afraid that after stopping, the two passengers would beat me together, so I drove for a while. Parking. They had a bad attitude and drank alcohol..."

  Court judgement: the driver is not guilty

  The Baiyun Court held that, based on the available evidence, it was confirmed that the case was caused by the victim Deng’s refusal to pay for the car, and Deng’s injury was also caused by the fact that Deng jumped out of the car’s rear window. There was no evidence to prove that the defendant Li was in danger Driving or violating traffic laws.

  Defendant Li was not subjectively negligent, and objectively did not commit acts that directly caused the victim to be injured. There was no criminal causality between his driving behavior and Deng’s injury. The prosecutor accused Li of negligence and serious injury. He was not guilty, so the defendant Li was not guilty.

  After the judgment of the first instance, the procuratorate believed that Li was subjectively negligent, and that there was a causal relationship between Li's refusal to stop and the result of the victim's serious injury, and filed a protest against the case.

  The second instance of the Guangzhou Intermediate People’s Court held that the defendant Li was not subjectively negligent, and he did not objectively commit acts that directly caused the victim’s injury. Deng’s injury was caused by the fact that he jumped out of the rear window of the vehicle on his own. There is no legal causal relationship between a certain refusal to stop the car and the injury result of the victim Deng.

Therefore, the facts ascertained in the original judgment are clear, the evidence is indeed sufficient, the application of law is accurate, and the trial procedures are legal.

The reasons for the protest put forward by the protest agency were not well-founded and the court rejected it.

Therefore, it was ruled to reject the protest and uphold the original judgment.

  Dispel doubts: Why does the driver not constitute a crime?

  The law officer pointed out that in this case, Li and Deng had a dispute over car fare. During Deng’s repeated requests to stop but Li refused to stop, Deng jumped on his own and was seriously injured. Li should not treat Deng. The consequences of serious injuries bear criminal responsibility.

Analyzing the specific reasons, there are mainly the following three points:

  1. There is no criminal causality between Li's behavior and Deng's serious injury.

In this case, the defendant Li and the victim Deng had a quarrel over the car fare. When Deng did not pay the normal car fare, Li said "Send you back to the place of origin without money" and continued to drive. The words and deeds were not enough It caused actual physical damage to Deng in the car, and did not put his body and life in danger, and Deng’s friend Chen was also in the car. Deng was not in a disadvantaged position.

  In fact, the victim Deng’s own jumping behavior puts himself in a dangerous state. Even if Deng is in a drunk state, his recognition and judgment ability is reduced to a certain extent, but it is still foreseeable that forcibly jumping from the car may cause injury or even death s consequence.

Defendant Li’s words and deeds did not impose mental coercion on Deng. The victim could freely choose to jump or not to jump. Therefore, there is no criminal law causation between the defendant’s behavior and the victim’s serious injury.

  Deng chose to jump off the car based on his free will and caused serious injuries. He should be held responsible for his actions.

  2. The defendant Li did not have the possibility of preventing the victim from jumping off the car.

Defendant Li, as a taxi driver, has formed a carrier relationship with Deng. He has the obligation to ensure safety to passengers, but he cannot one-sidedly emphasize the obligation of the driver to the passengers, and ignores that the passengers are also responsible for paying the fare. Obligations.

  The reason Li chose not to stop was because Deng did not pay for the car and took private relief when he called the police and failed to effectively protect his rights.

When Deng asked to stop by tapping the window, he opened the door and got out of the car by himself, but was stopped by a friend who was traveling with him. At the same time, Li also locked the door.

  From a common sense, in the case of unable to open the door, Dengmou is unlikely to jump again.

When Deng chose to jump from the car window, Chen, who was sitting in the back of the car, did not notice, but asked Li to always pay attention to Deng’s behavior and protect his safety while driving safely. This request is too harsh.

Under the circumstances at the time, it was difficult for Li to find that Deng jumped from the car window and stopped it. Li should not bear criminal responsibility.

  3. It is more in line with the general psychological expectations of the public to determine that the defendant’s behavior does not constitute a crime.

In order to reasonably clarify the scope of penalties in the criminal law, it is necessary to make judgments on the marginal behavior of crimes and non-criminals, felonies and misdemeanors, in accordance with ordinary people's lives and social common sense.

The defendant’s actions did not directly cause the victim's minor injuries or the actual risk of physical harm, nor did he even have direct contact with the victim’s body. The defendant has the freedom to choose whether to jump off the car, and it is only relevant. The conviction and treatment of the behavior will expand the scope of punishment in the criminal law, reduce the free space of the public, and the innocence treatment will be more socially recognized.