□ Our reporter Zhao Hongqi

  □ Our correspondent Mu Tong

  The owner of the car, Jing Mou, did not expect that he parked the vehicle illegally on the side of the road and paid a compensation price of more than 30,000 yuan.

The reason is that the illegal parking of the vehicle caused a certain line of sight obstruction, and it was confirmed to bear the secondary responsibility for a traffic accident.

  One night in April 2021, when Kou, a resident of Zhengzhou City, Henan Province, drove an electric car to the gate of a community, he collided with Yu, who was driving an electric car, causing damage to the vehicle. Both Kou and Yu were injured.

It was determined by the traffic police that Kou did not drive on the right side of the road when driving an electric vehicle, he was driving in the wrong direction, and he was speeding, so he was mainly responsible for the traffic accident; Responsibility; a minivan at the accident site was not parked at the specified location, which violated the road safety law and caused a certain line of sight to be blocked, and was secondary responsible for the traffic accident.

  After the accident, Yu negotiated with Kou and the van owner several times on the issue of compensation, but they did not reach an agreement.

To this end, Yu sued Kou, Jing, and an insurance company to the People's Court of Zhongyuan District, Zhengzhou City, asking Kou and Jing to compensate for medical expenses, nutritional expenses, lost work expenses, and nursing expenses totaling more than 72,000 yuan. A person is liable for compensation within the limit of compulsory traffic insurance.

  "I was also injured in the accident, and I shall bear at most 50% of the responsibility for this accident." During the trial, Kou believed that according to the traffic accident liability determination letter, the plaintiff Yu should bear 20% of the responsibility, and the owner of the van was responsible for 20% of the responsibility. Should bear 30% of the responsibility.

  "My illegal parking is not the cause of the accident." In the court trial, a certain objection was raised to the determination of the responsibility for the traffic accident, and he believed that he should not be held responsible for the accident. 60% to 70% responsibility.

  An insurance company argued that because a vehicle was not insured by the insurance company for compulsory insurance and commercial three-party insurance at the time of the accident, it should not be liable for compensation.

  After the trial, the court held that one of the focal points of the dispute in this case was whether the defendant Jing Mou should be liable for compensation.

After the accident, the traffic police department issued a letter of determination of responsibility for the traffic accident, and found that Jing was secondary responsible for the accident. Although Jing raised an objection to the determination of responsibility for the accident during the trial, no evidence was provided to prove his claim.

Therefore, its objection is not accepted.

  The court subdivided the responsibilities according to the causes of the traffic accident and the degree of fault: the plaintiff Yu bears 20% of the responsibility, the defendant Kou bears 60% of the responsibility, and the defendant Jing bears 20% of the responsibility.

Because Jingxu is not insured for the compulsory traffic accident liability insurance for motor vehicles, Jingxu should first be liable within the limit of compulsory traffic insurance, and Kou and Jingxue shall be liable for compensation according to the proportion of accident liability.

It was confirmed by calculation that the plaintiff Yu's medical expenses, hospital meal allowances, and nutrition expenses totaled 35,569.81 yuan, and lost work, nursing, and transportation expenses totaled 12,340.19 yuan.

  The first-instance court ruled that after a certain compensation for Mr. Yu's medical expenses, hospital meal subsidies, nutrition expenses, lost work expenses, nursing expenses, and transportation expenses, a total of 33,854.15 yuan, of which 30,340.19 yuan within the limit of compulsory insurance; Fees, nutrition fees, a total of 10541.89 yuan.

  "In life, some car owners will park their vehicles at the gate of the community or on the side of the road. These seemingly convenient behaviors may bring bad results. On the one hand, their vehicles may be bumped and scratched by passing vehicles, causing the vehicle to suffer On the other hand, it will hinder the passage, cause the line of sight to be blocked, and cause traffic accidents, and bear the corresponding responsibility. Therefore, even if it is a temporary parking, the vehicle must be parked in the standard parking space, and must not be parked arbitrarily." The presiding judge Li Huijuan reminded Said, "Motor vehicle owners must purchase compulsory traffic insurance according to regulations. Compulsory traffic insurance is the first compulsory insurance system implemented by national laws, mainly to provide timely and basic protection for casualties and property losses caused by road traffic accidents. Don't take chances and lose the big because of the small, otherwise you will bear the corresponding compensation liability like Jing."