On the morning of May 6, 2026, the Supreme People’s Court held a press conference to release the “Interpretation (II) of the Supreme People’s Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in Adjudicating Cases Involving Damage Compensation for Road Traffic Accidents,” along with relevant typical cases, and to answer questions from reporters. Chen Yifang, Member of the Judicial Committee of the Supreme People’s Court and Chief Judge of the First Civil Division; Du Jun, Deputy Chief Judge of the First Civil Division; and Gao Yanzhu, Second-Level Senior Judge of the First Civil Division, attended the conference, which was chaired by Ji Zhongbiao, Deputy Director of the News Bureau of the Supreme People’s Court. At the press conference, Chen Yifang, Member of the Judicial Committee of the Supreme People’s Court and Chief Judge of the First Civil Division, announced the “Interpretation (II) of the Supreme People’s Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in Adjudicating Cases Involving Damage Compensation for Road Traffic Accidents.”

In order to ensure the proper adjudication of road traffic accident damage compensation cases (hereinafter referred to as “road traffic dispute cases”) and to safeguard, in accordance with the law, the safety of persons and property and social harmony and stability, the 1963rd meeting of the Judicial Committee of the Supreme People’s Court, held on December 23, 2025, deliberated and adopted the “Interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Adjudication of Road Traffic Accident Damage Compensation Cases (II)” (hereinafter referred to as “Interpretation (II)”), which shall enter into force on June 30, 2026.

I. The Background to the Formulation of Interpretation (II)

In recent years, China’s road transport sector has continued to grow rapidly. According to relevant statistics, the country currently has 469 million motor vehicles, 559 million licensed drivers, and approximately 580 million bicycles and electric bicycles. As a result, travel has become more convenient and efficient, while living spaces and quality of life have been significantly expanded and improved. At the same time, road traffic accidents occur from time to time; among the cases handled by the people’s courts in recent years, disputes arising from road traffic incidents have consistently accounted for a substantial share of civil cases.

Roads connect millions of households, and safety concerns us all. Road traffic safety is closely tied to the vital interests of every individual. General Secretary Xi Jinping has stressed the need to officely establish a safety‑oriented development philosophy and to always put the safety of people’s lives first. The Fourth Plenary Session of the 20th CPC Central Committee further underscored the importance of strengthening efforts to safeguard and improve people’s livelihoods and to enhance the quality of life. Properly resolving road traffic disputes and adjudicating related cases in accordance with the law—while using lawful and reasonable rules to guide the public in reinforcing their awareness of safety and responsibility and in consciously upholding a well‑ordered traffic environment—are essential steps in earnestly implementing the decisions and arrangements of the Party Central Committee and in using judicial mechanisms to protect the basic living standards of the people and to maintain social harmony and stability.

Interpretation (II) is, following the Supreme People’s Court’s 2020 amendment to the Interpretation on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in Adjudicating Cases Involving Damage Compensation for Road Traffic Accidents (hereinafter referred to as Interpretation (I)), a set of adjudicatory rules formulated in accordance with the principles and spirit of the Civil Code of the People’s Republic of China and the Road Traffic Safety Law of the People’s Republic of China. These rules address several key and difficult issues arising in current judicial practice concerning road traffic dispute cases. During the drafting process, based on a thorough review of judicial practice, we conducted in-depth research through big data analysis, systematic collation of questions posted on the Legal Consultation Platform, symposiums with local courts, and analysis of pressing social issues. This enabled us to gain a broader understanding of public concerns, listen to voices from the grassroots, and identify the challenges faced at the front lines, thereby focusing our efforts on urgently needed solutions. In the course of drafting, we sought the views of local courts and relevant authorities on multiple occasions and also publicly solicited opinions from all sectors of society. Drawing extensively on constructive feedback from all stakeholders and after repeated deliberations and rigorous argumentation, we finalized Interpretation (II), with the aim of advancing the implementation of the law, standardizing adjudicatory rules, and ensuring the proper conduct of judicial proceedings.

II. Principles Upheld in Interpretation (II)

During the drafting of Interpretation (II), we consistently adhered to the following principles:

First, we must uphold the principle of putting the people first and strengthen mechanisms for safeguarding their rights and redressing grievances. Traffic accidents often result in personal injury and property damage to victims, and in some cases even lead to severe consequences such as disability or death, leaving victims and their families in dire straits. Without robust safeguards, this situation can give rise to further problems and exacerbate existing conflicts. Ensuring full and timely redress for traffic accident victims in accordance with the law is the top priority of the people’s courts when adjudicating road traffic dispute cases. Through clarifying liability, leveraging the protective role of insurance, refining rules for assessing losses, and defining the scope of compensation, Interpretation (II) upholds the fundamental principles of judicial fairness and public welfare.

Second, we will strengthen our problem-oriented approach and ensure that disputes are resolved definitively. Road traffic dispute cases involve multiple parties, including the motor vehicle owner, manager, user, accident victim, and insurance company, with tort‑related legal relationships intertwined with insurance, labor‑service, and vehicle‑leasing arrangements. During adjudication, accurately applying the law and appropriately allocating liability are both the key to resolving disputes and the primary challenge. The Interpretation (II), grounded in judicial practice and oriented toward addressing concrete issues while serving the grassroots level, provides clear rules on a series of long‑standing questions—such as “who shall compensate,” “when compensation shall be paid,” and “how much shall be paid”—while legally recognizing various beneficial and effective mechanisms and resources for dispute resolution. This enriches the “toolbox” for settling disputes and seeks to resolve conflicts at the community level within the framework of the rule of law, thereby safeguarding social stability through the stability of legal relations.

Third, we emphasize ideological guidance to foster a positive social ethos. Judicial adjudication rules provide predictability of conduct and serve as an important model and guide. By legally and appropriately defining the rights and obligations of the parties, reasonably allocating liability, and clearly articulating what should be promoted and upheld, as well as what ought to be prevented and avoided, Interpretation (II) helps foster greater public awareness of safety, compliance with rules, and accountability, thereby cultivating a culture of safe and civilized travel and jointly contributing to a sound and orderly traffic environment.

Fourth, focus on substantive dispute resolution and prevent procedural inefficiencies. The handling of traffic accidents often involves multiple stages, including advance payment, compensation, and recovery of costs. A single accident can give rise to numerous lawsuits, resulting in protracted dispute‑resolution procedures, high costs, and even procedural inefficiencies. In response, Interpretation No. 2, guided by the relevant provisions of the Civil Code and the Civil Procedure Law, seeks to enhance the efficiency of judicial proceedings and improve the quality and effectiveness of integrated dispute resolution by refining procedural design and consolidating related claims. This approach aims to achieve streamlined, substantive, and timely resolution of all disputes arising from a single accident, thereby effectively reducing the burden on litigants and preventing unnecessary procedural delays.

III. Main Contents of Interpretation (II)

Interpretation (II) comprises 12 articles, setting forth provisions on matters such as the liable parties, determination of liability, calculation of damages, and procedural rules. Here, we will focus on the specific content of the following five aspects.

First, it clarifies the allocation of liability in cases involving the rental or borrowing of motor vehicles. In cases involving the rental or borrowing of motor vehicles, the vehicle’s owner, manager, and user are often not the same person. When a motor vehicle is involved in a traffic accident that causes harm to others, Article 1209 of the Civil Code provides that the user of the vehicle bears liability for damages; if the owner or manager of the vehicle was at fault in causing the damage, they shall bear corresponding liability. In practice, however, there remains disagreement as to how “corresponding liability” should be interpreted. To address this, Article 1 of the Interpretation (II) clarifies that when the injured party seeks liability from both the user and the owner or manager, the user shall bear the full extent of the tortfeasor’s liability; if the owner or manager was at fault, they shall share liability with the user within the scope of their own fault. At the same time, it is expressly stipulated that the aggregate amount of compensation actually paid by these liable parties shall not exceed the total loss suffered by the injured party. This provision not only encourages drivers to exercise due care but also serves as a reminder to vehicle owners and managers to exercise adequate diligence—particularly when lending or renting out vehicles—by carefully assessing the vehicle’s safety condition and the driver’s qualifications, thereby jointly building a robust safeguard for road traffic safety.

Second, it clarifies the protection afforded to victims in cases of “open‑door attacks.” Accidents in which motor vehicles cause harm to others by opening their doors on the road occur from time to time. Such incidents are often triggered by the driver’s negligence, yet they frequently result in serious consequences. When a passenger opens a vehicle door and causes damage to another party, whether the insurance policy held by the motor vehicle is obligated to compensate for that harm remains a matter of differing interpretation in practice. Some insurers contend that, since the passenger is not an insured person under the motor vehicle insurance contract, they should not be liable to pay damages to the injured party. To effectively safeguard the interests of victims and ensure a fair allocation of risk, Article 2 of Interpretation (II) further clarifies the scope of “liability of the motor vehicle side” as set forth in Article 1213 of the Civil Code. Specifically, paragraph 1 provides that if the injured party (i.e., the victim) asserts that the passenger’s liability falls within the purview of the motor vehicle’s liability and requests compensation from the insurer—up to the compulsory traffic insurance limit and in accordance with the terms of the commercial third-party liability insurance—the people’s courts shall uphold such claims. At the same time, it is made clear that any shortfall remaining after insurance payment shall be borne by the passenger and the driver in accordance with the law. This provision both promotes the full utilization of insurance’s protective function to provide timely relief to victims and, by imposing strict liability on passengers and drivers, reinforces their duty of due care, thereby preventing minor oversights from escalating into major accidents. Furthermore, in line with the statutory rules governing recovery under compulsory traffic insurance, paragraph 2 stipulates that, following payment under compulsory insurance, the insurer may seek recourse against passengers who acted with intent. In this way, while ensuring the basic protective role of compulsory traffic insurance, the provision also imposes severe penalties on those who intentionally contributed to the occurrence of harm.

Third, it is necessary to determine the consideration of fault in cases of “good-faith carpooling.” In everyday life, practices such as “carpooling without charge” or “hitchhiking” align with common social norms. With respect to non-commercial motor vehicles that carry passengers free of charge, if a traffic accident occurs resulting in harm to the passenger, Article 1217 of the Civil Code provides that, absent intentional misconduct or gross negligence on the part of the vehicle operator, the operator’s liability for damages shall be reduced. On the other hand, following an accident, the traffic management department of the public security organ (hereinafter referred to as the public security traffic management department) typically assigns liability—such as full responsibility, primary responsibility, equal responsibility, or secondary responsibility. There is disagreement as to whether full or primary responsibility under this determination can be directly equated with the vehicle operator’s “gross negligence” toward the passenger’s injuries, thereby precluding any reduction in the operator’s liability to the passenger. After careful consideration, we hold that the determinations of full or primary responsibility made by the public security traffic management department are generally based on a comparative assessment of the conduct of all parties involved in the accident and do not automatically establish the vehicle operator’s fault regarding the passenger’s harm. In cases of “good‑faith carpooling,” whether the vehicle operator constitutes “intentional misconduct or gross negligence” as stipulated in Article 1217 of the Civil Code must still be determined in light of the totality of the facts of the case. Article 3 of the Interpretation (II) expressly provides that people’s courts shall, taking into account the aforementioned determinations by the public security traffic management department, the causes of the accident, and the specific conduct of the vehicle operator, assess whether the operator has engaged in “intentional misconduct or gross negligence.” This approach helps to fully realize the value of the “good‑faith carpooling” regime and encourages mutual assistance and acts of kindness.

Fourth, it addresses the challenges related to the scope of compensation and the methods for its calculation. At present, it is quite common for workers to continue working beyond the statutory retirement age. Following a traffic accident, tortfeasors often refuse to compensate for lost wages on the ground that the injured party has exceeded the statutory retirement age. We hold that the legitimate rights and interests of older workers should be protected by law, and that whether an injured party is entitled to compensation for lost wages should not be determined solely by whether they have reached the statutory retirement age; rather, such determination must take into account the specific facts of the case and the evidence to ascertain whether actual loss of earnings has occurred. Article 6 of Interpretation (II) provides that if the injured party has surpassed the statutory retirement age but there is evidence demonstrating that they suffered a loss of income due to the traffic accident, their claim for compensation for lost wages shall be upheld, thereby fully reflecting respect for and protection of the lawful rights and interests of older workers and supporting the principle of enabling seniors to remain active and productive. With regard to the calculation of disability compensation, when an injured party becomes disabled as a result of a traffic accident and subsequently dies during the course of litigation over a road‑traffic dispute due to other causes, there have been differing views in practice as to whether disability compensation should continue to be computed according to the standardized method. In response, Article 7 of Interpretation (II) expressly stipulates that, in such circumstances, disability compensation shall still be calculated in accordance with the standards set forth in Article 12 of the Supreme People’s Court’s Interpretation on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Personal Injury Compensation Cases, thereby effectively safeguarding the legitimate rights and interests of the victim. Furthermore, where a traffic accident victim has multiple dependents, Article 8 of Interpretation (II) adopts a calculation approach that is more favorable to the victim.

Fifth, optimize litigation procedures through consolidated adjudication. Following a traffic accident, there has been uncertainty in practice as to whether the injured party may seek compensation from the tortfeasor for medical expenses advanced by the social insurance administration or for funds disbursed by the Road Traffic Accident Social Assistance Fund (hereinafter referred to as the “Road Assistance Fund”), and whether claims for reimbursement brought by the social insurance administration or the Road Assistance Fund management agency can be consolidated within the same road‑traffic dispute proceedings. Article 10, Paragraph 1 of Interpretation No. 2, adhering to the principle of “loss‑reparation,” provides that if a party seeks to hold the tortfeasor liable for medical expenses already paid by the basic medical insurance fund or the work‑injury insurance fund, or for emergency treatment and funeral expenses advanced by the Road Assistance Fund, such claims shall not be supported by the people’s courts, thereby preventing the injured party from receiving duplicate compensation. Paragraph 2 clarifies that, during the adjudication of road‑traffic dispute cases, if the social insurance administration that has advanced medical expenses files a claim for reimbursement against the tortfeasor, or if the Road Assistance Fund management agency that has paid emergency treatment or funeral expenses brings a similar claim against the party responsible for the accident, the people’s courts shall consolidate these claims for joint adjudication where consolidation is appropriate. Furthermore, Article 11 of Interpretation No. 2 establishes corresponding procedural rules for disputes involving liability arising from non‑motorized vehicle accidents. These provisions facilitate the efficient exercise of reimbursement rights by the relevant institutions, help maintain the stability and value of public funds, and ensure that the public benefits more equitably and effectively.

Going forward, the people’s courts will continue to thoroughly implement the spirit of the 20th National Congress of the Communist Party of China and the plenary sessions of the 20th Central Committee, earnestly carry out the tasks set forth at the Fourth Plenary Session, and rigorously uphold the overarching requirement of fostering and practicing a correct view of political achievements. They will balance serving economic and social development with delivering concrete measures that improve people’s livelihoods and safeguard public security and stability; ensure the effective implementation of judicial interpretations and adjudicatory guidelines; strengthen guidance to lower-level courts and conduct rigorous performance evaluations; and enhance the quality and efficiency of resolving road traffic disputes. By providing high‑quality judicial services, they will underpin high‑quality development, lay a solid legal foundation for a strong start to the 15th Five-Year Plan, and, through the power of justice, ensure a safe and secure journey for the people.

★

　　The “Interpretation (II) of the Supreme People’s Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Cases Involving Damage Compensation for Road Traffic Accidents” was adopted at the 1963rd meeting of the Judicial Committee of the Supreme People’s Court on December 23, 2025, and is hereby promulgated, entering into force as of June 30, 2026.

 

Supreme People's Court

May 6, 2026

Interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court No. 9 of 2026

Interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Cases Involving Damage Compensation for Road Traffic Accidents (II)

(Adopted at the 1963rd Meeting of the Judicial Committee of the Supreme People’s Court on December 23, 2025, and effective as of June 30, 2026)

In order to ensure the proper adjudication of civil cases involving damages arising from road traffic accidents, this Interpretation is hereby formulated in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Code of the People’s Republic of China, the Road Traffic Safety Law of the People’s Republic of China, the Insurance Law of the People’s Republic of China, the Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China, and other relevant laws, and in light of judicial practice.

Article 1 Where, in cases of leasing, borrowing, or similar arrangements, the owner, manager, and user of a motor vehicle are not the same person, and a traffic accident results in harm to another party, if the injured party seeks to hold both the user and the owner/manager liable, the user shall bear all liability that the tortfeasor is required to assume. If the owner or manager also bears fault for the occurrence of the damage, they shall share liability for compensation with the user within the scope of their respective fault; however, the aggregate amount of compensation actually paid by all liable parties shall not exceed the total loss suffered by the injured party.

Where the owner or manager of a motor vehicle has first paid compensation and then seeks reimbursement from the user of the vehicle for any amount exceeding their own share of liability, the people’s court shall uphold such claim.

Article 2 When a motor vehicle passenger causes harm to another by opening a door, and the injured party brings suit against the passenger, the driver, and the insurer of the compulsory traffic accident liability insurance (hereinafter referred to as “Compulsory Insurance”) and the commercial third-party liability insurance (hereinafter referred to as “Commercial Third-Party Insurance” for that motor vehicle, seeking compensation on the grounds that the passenger’s liability falls within the scope of the motor vehicle’s liability, and invoking Article 1213 of the Civil Code regarding the order of liability among tortfeasors in traffic accidents—requesting that the Compulsory Insurance provider compensate within the limits of its coverage and that the Commercial Third-Party Insurance provider compensate according to the terms of the insurance contract—the people’s court shall uphold such claims. If the insurer defends itself by asserting that the passenger is neither an insured person nor a driver authorized by the insured, the people’s court shall reject this defense. Any shortfall remaining after such compensation shall be borne by the passenger and the driver in accordance with the provisions on tort liability set forth in Book VII of the Civil Code.

Where an insurer that has underwritten compulsory traffic accident liability insurance seeks to recover from a passenger after having assumed liability for compensation, the people’s court shall not grant such claim, unless the damage was caused intentionally by the passenger.

Article 3 In the event of a traffic accident involving a non-commercial motor vehicle that results in harm to a gratuitous passenger, if the injured party brings suit against the user of the motor vehicle seeking compensation, and the user of the motor vehicle seeks to have its liability reduced, the people’s court shall grant such relief. However, this does not apply where the user of the motor vehicle acted with intent or gross negligence.

Where the injured party relies on the traffic accident liability determination issued by the public security organ’s traffic management department, which finds that the motor vehicle party bears full or primary responsibility, to contend that the motor vehicle user has committed intentional misconduct or gross negligence as stipulated in the preceding paragraph, the people’s court shall make its determination by comprehensively considering the accident liability determination, the causes of the accident, and the specific conduct of the motor vehicle user.

Article 4 Where, during the period in which a motor vehicle driver’s license has expired but has not yet been revoked, a traffic accident occurs resulting in damage to others, and the injured party seeks to hold the insurer of the compulsory traffic liability insurance and the commercial third-party liability insurance liable under the insurance policies, the people’s court shall not uphold the insurer’s refusal to assume liability on the ground that the driver’s license has expired.

Article 5 Where a motor vehicle engaged in specialized operations such as lifting or hoisting is involved in a traffic accident causing damage to others, and the injured party seeks to hold the insurer liable for compensation within the compulsory traffic insurance liability limit, the people’s court shall uphold such claim.

Where, during the operation of a motor vehicle as specified in the preceding paragraph, damage is caused to another party not arising from a traffic accident, the people’s court shall not support the claim by the injured party that the insurer bear compensation liability within the compulsory insurance liability limit. However, if such a motor vehicle causes damage to another party in an accident occurring when it is traveling outside of roadways, and the injured party seeks compensation from the insurer within the compulsory insurance liability limit, the people’s court shall, in accordance with Article 43 of the Regulations on Compulsory Motor Vehicle Traffic Accident Liability Insurance, apply the provisions of those Regulations by analogy and grant such claim.

Where the injured party brings a claim against the insurer for compensation in accordance with the terms of an insurance contract, such as a third-party liability policy for special-purpose vehicles, the people’s court shall uphold such claim in accordance with the law. If the compensation awarded is still insufficient, and the injured party seeks to hold the tortfeasor liable pursuant to the provisions of the law on damages, the people’s court shall likewise grant such relief.

Article 6 Where the injured party has exceeded the statutory retirement age but can provide evidence of lost earnings resulting from a traffic accident and seeks compensation from the tortfeasor, the people’s court shall grant such claim.

Article 7 Where an injured party, having sustained a disability as a result of a traffic accident, subsequently dies during the pendency of litigation concerning damages arising from that same traffic accident due to other causes, and the claimant seeks to calculate the disability compensation in accordance with the standards set forth in Article 12 of the Supreme People’s Court’s Interpretation on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Personal Injury Compensation Cases, the people’s court shall grant such claim.

Article 8 Where a traffic accident victim has multiple dependents, the living expenses of each dependent shall be calculated based on the degree of the victim’s loss of earning capacity, and then the individual amounts shall be summed. The total annual compensation thus determined shall not exceed the per capita consumer expenditure of urban residents in the preceding year.

Article 9 In road traffic accident damage compensation cases, where the tortfeasor and its insurer are found liable, the people’s court shall determine the amount of court filing fees to be borne by each party based on their respective interests in the subject matter of the litigation. If the insurer seeks to avoid payment of the court filing fee solely on the ground that the insurance contract stipulates that it is not responsible for such fees, the people’s court shall reject this defense.

Article 10 Where a party seeks to hold the tortfeasor liable for compensation for medical expenses already paid by the basic medical insurance fund or the work‑injury insurance fund, as well as for emergency treatment and funeral expenses advanced by the road traffic accident social assistance fund, the people’s court shall not support such claims.

In the adjudication of road traffic accident damage compensation cases, if the social insurance agency that has advanced payment of medical expenses brings a claim for reimbursement against the tortfeasor, or if the road traffic accident social assistance fund management agency that has advanced emergency treatment and funeral expenses brings a claim for reimbursement against the party liable for the accident, and such claims are suitable for joint adjudication, the people’s court shall hear them jointly.

Article 11 When a party brings a lawsuit for liability arising from a non-motorized vehicle traffic accident, naming the tortfeasor as the defendant and simultaneously including the insurer of the non-motorized vehicle’s commercial third-party liability insurance as a defendant and seeking compensation from it, the people’s court shall hear the case in a consolidated proceeding.

Where the non-motorized vehicle is at fault, if the parties contend that the insurer providing commercial third-party liability coverage for the non-motorized vehicle should compensate in accordance with the terms of the insurance contract, and that any shortfall shall be borne by the tortfeasor, the people’s court shall uphold such claim.

Article 12 This Interpretation shall take effect as of June 30, 2026.

This Interpretation shall apply to cases that have not yet reached final adjudication as of the date of its entry into force; it shall not apply to cases that had already attained final adjudication prior to its entry into force, whether upon a party’s application for retrial or by virtue of a decision to grant retrial under the trial‑supervision procedure.

Typical Cases

 

To help readers better and more vividly understand the relevant provisions of the Supreme People’s Court’s Interpretation (II) on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Cases Involving Damage Compensation for Road Traffic Accidents, the Supreme People’s Court has released six typical cases involving road traffic damage compensation.

Case 1 In such cases, where the vehicle owner, knowing that the other party had consumed alcohol, nevertheless entrusted the vehicle to them for driving, the people’s court has ruled that the vehicle owner shall, within the scope of their fault, jointly bear liability for damages arising from the traffic accident with the vehicle user.

Case 2 In this case, the motor vehicle driver failed to fulfill his duty to provide adequate warning after stopping, and the passenger, having neglected to observe the surroundings, opened the door, thereby causing harm to another party. The people’s court held that the passenger’s act of opening the door resulting in injury constituted liability on the part of the motor vehicle, and ordered the insurance company to compensate within the limits of its coverage. Any losses exceeding the scope of insurance coverage were borne by the passenger and the driver.

Case 3 In cases where a driver, while transporting another person gratuitously, causes a traffic accident resulting in injury to the passenger, the people’s court, after comprehensively considering the causes of the accident and relevant facts, determines that the motor vehicle driver did not act with intent or gross negligence, and accordingly reduces the driver’s liability for compensation in accordance with the law.

Case 4 In this case, a motor vehicle engaged in specialized construction operations injured another person while reversing within the premises of a closed construction site. The People’s Court, in accordance with the law and by analogy to the provisions of the Compulsory Traffic Accident Liability Insurance Regulations, ordered that compensation be paid out under the compulsory insurance scheme.

Case 5 In such cases, the people’s courts, in accordance with the law, consolidate the tort‑related traffic dispute brought by the victim with the recovery claim filed by the road rescue fund management agency, thereby enhancing dispute‑resolution efficiency and enabling the management agency to exercise its right of recovery more conveniently.

Case 6 In such cases, when a party files a lawsuit over a non‑motorized vehicle traffic accident liability dispute, they may name both the non‑motorized vehicle driver and the commercial third‑party liability insurer as defendants. The people’s court, in accordance with the law, consolidates the proceedings for joint adjudication, thereby resolving the dispute in a single proceeding and alleviating the burden of litigation on the parties.

 

 

Typical Cases of Compensation for Damages in Road Traffic Accidents

Table of Contents

 

Case study 1  If the owner of a motor vehicle is at fault for the occurrence of the damage, he/she shall, within the scope of such fault, bear joint liability for compensation together with the user of the motor vehicle. —— Li v. Feng, Zhang, and a certain insurance company — Dispute over Liability in a Motor Vehicle Traffic Accident

 

Case study 2  When a passenger causes harm by opening a door in a manner that endangers others, the insurance company, the passenger, and the driver shall all bear liability for compensation in accordance with the law. —— Case of Dispute over Liability for a Motor Vehicle Traffic Accident Involving Pan Moumou, Dong Moumou, Du Moumou, and a Certain Insurance Company

 

Case study 3  In cases of “good‑faith carpooling,” where a passenger suffers harm in a traffic accident, the driver’s liability for compensation shall be reduced in accordance with the law. —— Li v. Zhang Motor Vehicle Traffic Accident Liability Dispute Case

 

Case study 4  If an engineering-specialized motor vehicle is involved in an accident while traveling outside of public roads, the compulsory traffic accident liability insurance shall provide compensation. —— Case of Tort Liability Dispute Involving Cai, Cheng, and a Certain Insurance Company, among Others

 

Case study 5  Where the road rescue fund management agency that has advanced payment of expenses brings a claim for reimbursement in a road traffic dispute case, the court shall, in accordance with the law, consolidate the proceedings. — Case of a dispute over liability for a motor vehicle traffic accident involving Zhou, Pang, an insurance company, and the Road Rescue Fund Management Agency, among others.
 

 

Case 6: Where the injured party names both the non-motorized vehicle driver and the commercial third-party liability insurer as joint defendants, the people’s court shall, in accordance with the law, consolidate the cases for joint trial. — Case of a non-motorized vehicle traffic accident liability dispute involving Cui, Zong, a certain company, and a certain insurance company, among others.

 

Case 1

 

If the owner of a motor vehicle is at fault for the occurrence of the damage, he/she shall, within the scope of such fault, bear joint liability for compensation together with the user of the motor vehicle.

——Li v. Feng, Zhang, and a certain insurance company: Dispute over liability arising from a motor vehicle traffic accident

 

[Basic Facts of the Case]

 

After drinking with Feng, Zhang handed over his motor vehicle to Feng for driving. While driving, Feng exceeded the speed limit and collided with a two-wheeled motorcycle driven by Li, causing Li to sustain injuries. Following the accident, Feng abandoned the vehicle and fled the scene. The public security traffic management authority determined that Feng bore full responsibility for the accident, while Li was found to be without fault. Zhang’s motor vehicle was insured with compulsory traffic liability insurance and commercial third-party liability insurance through a certain insurance company, and the accident occurred during the policy period. Li brought suit before the court, seeking compensation from Feng, Zhang, and the insurance company for all losses incurred as a result of the traffic accident.

 

[Judgment Result]

 

The trial court held that Article 1209 of the Civil Code provides that when, in cases of leasing, borrowing, or similar circumstances, the owner, manager, and user of a motor vehicle are not the same person, if a traffic accident occurs resulting in damage for which the motor vehicle is liable, the user shall bear the liability for compensation; however, if the owner or manager was at fault in causing the damage, they shall bear corresponding compensation liability. In this case, Feng drove a motor vehicle after drinking and caused a traffic accident that injured Li, thus he should bear the liability for compensation. Zhang, as the owner of the motor vehicle, knowingly allowed Feng to drive despite knowing that Feng had been drinking, thereby bearing fault for the occurrence of the accident and should assume 40% of the compensation liability within the scope of his fault. Furthermore, Feng drove under the influence of alcohol and fled the scene after the accident, actions that violate the prohibitive provisions of the Road Traffic Safety Law. The insurance company has fulfilled its duty to provide adequate notice and explanation regarding the relevant exclusion clauses, and is therefore exempt from liability for compensation under the commercial third-party liability insurance. Accordingly, the court ruled that the insurance company shall compensate Li within the limits of the compulsory traffic insurance; any amount exceeding those limits shall be borne by Feng, with 40% of that portion jointly borne by Zhang and Feng.

 

[Typical Significance]

 

In practice, some motor vehicle owners or managers, knowing or reasonably ought to know that another person is unfit to drive—such as having consumed alcohol or lacking a valid driver’s license—still entrust the vehicle to that person, thereby posing a serious threat to road traffic safety. Subjectively, these owners and managers exhibit negligence in recklessly allowing such risks to materialize; objectively, they also increase the likelihood of accidents. The judgment in this case not only helps ensure that victims receive timely redress but also strengthens the sense of responsibility among vehicle owners and managers, encouraging them to carefully assess drivers’ qualifications and enhance the management of their vehicles, thus building a robust safeguard for road traffic safety and preventing accidents.

 

Case 2

 

When a passenger causes harm by opening a door in a manner that endangers others, the insurance company, the passenger, and the driver shall all bear liability for compensation in accordance with the law.

— Case of Dispute over Liability for a Motor Vehicle Traffic Accident between Pan Moumou, Dong Moumou, Du Moumou, and a Certain Insurance Company

 

[Basic Facts of the Case]

 

Dong, while driving a motor vehicle, stopped on a certain stretch of road. As passenger Du opened the door to exit, the driver failed to warn of conditions outside the vehicle, resulting in a collision between the door and Pan, who was riding an electric bicycle. Pan sustained injuries, and the bicycle was damaged. The public security traffic management authority determined that Dong and Du each bear equal responsibility, while Pan bears no liability. The motor vehicle involved in the accident was insured with compulsory traffic liability insurance and commercial third-party liability insurance by a certain insurance company, and the incident occurred during the policy period. Pan brought suit before the court, seeking compensation from Dong, Du, and the insurance company for his losses. The insurance company argued that the commercial third-party liability coverage should only cover the portion of liability attributable to the driver—namely, 50% of the total liability.

 

[Judgment Result]

 

The trial court held that, in this case, the driver, Dong, exercised actual control over the selection of the vehicle’s route and parking location, yet failed to fulfill his duty to warn passenger Du before she opened the door. Meanwhile, passenger Du failed to exercise due care when opening the door. The combined actions of both parties jointly caused the accident, constituting a joint tort. Although the public security traffic management authorities assigned separate liabilities to the driver and the passenger, for the victim, Pan, both the driver and the passenger are components of the motor vehicle side and constitute a single entity. With respect to the liability of this motor vehicle side, the insurance company is obligated to assume compensation within the limits of compulsory traffic insurance and commercial third-party liability insurance; therefore, the insurance company’s defense that it should only compensate for the driver’s liability is untenable. As for losses exceeding the scope of insurance coverage, Du and Dong shall bear joint and several liability for such damages. Based on the evidence of losses submitted by Pan, the court ultimately ruled: the insurance company shall compensate Pan more than RMB 320,000; any losses beyond the scope of insurance coverage shall be borne jointly and severally by Du and Dong.

 

[Typical Significance]

 

In everyday life, “dooring” accidents—caused by improper parking by drivers or by passengers failing to check their surroundings when exiting a vehicle—occur from time to time. The judgment in this case helps to maximize the protective role of motor vehicle insurance and ensure that victims receive timely redress, while also encouraging drivers to provide adequate and timely warnings and prompting passengers to exercise due caution when opening car doors. This approach promotes accountability among all road users, strengthens risk‑prevention awareness, and prevents seemingly minor oversights from escalating into serious accidents.

 

Case 3

 

In cases of “good‑faith carpooling,” where a passenger suffers harm in a traffic accident, the driver’s liability for compensation shall be reduced in accordance with the law.

——Li v. Zhang Motor Vehicle Traffic Accident Liability Dispute Case

 

[Basic Facts of the Case]

 

One day, Zhang and Li were both working at the same location. After lunch, each intended to proceed to another identical site; Zhang drove his own motor vehicle and offered李某 a ride along the way. As it was midday following a meal, Zhang suddenly became drowsy while driving and, before he could bring the vehicle to a stop, it struck a tree by the roadside, causing injury to Li. The public security traffic management authority determined that this was a single‑party accident, with Zhang bearing full responsibility. Li brought the matter before the court, seeking compensation from Zhang in the amount of RMB 46,500 for medical expenses.

 

[Judgment Result]

 

The trial court held that, pursuant to Article 1217 of the Civil Code, where a non-commercial motor vehicle causes damage to a gratuitous passenger in a traffic accident and the liability rests with the driver of that vehicle, the driver’s compensation liability shall be reduced in accordance with the law, unless the driver acted with intent or gross negligence. In this case, Zhang drove a motor vehicle and caused harm to the gratuitous passenger, Li; therefore, Zhang is liable for compensation. Although the public security traffic management authority determined that Zhang bore full responsibility for the accident, given that Zhang was carrying Li without charge and there is no evidence demonstrating that Zhang acted with intent or gross negligence in causing the damage, the court, after considering the causes of the accident and the available evidence, appropriately reduced Zhang’s compensation liability. After deducting the RMB 13,500 already paid by Zhang, the court ultimately ruled that Zhang shall bear 80% of the compensation liability and pay Li RMB 23,700 (i.e., RMB 46,500 × 80% − RMB 13,500).

 

[Typical Significance]

 

The Civil Code stipulates that, in cases of “good‑faith carpooling,” the motor vehicle driver’s liability for damages shall be reduced; however, it also provides that such liability may not be mitigated when the driver acts with intent or gross negligence. This provision does not absolve the driver of the duty to drive safely. In practice, determinations by public security traffic management authorities—such as assigning full or primary responsibility—are typically based on a comparative assessment of the conduct of all parties involved and do not automatically equate to establishing the driver’s fault for the harm suffered by the passenger. In this case, the court, taking into account factors such as the time of the accident—occurring shortly after lunch—and the cause—sudden drowsiness on the part of the driver—concluded that the driver did not act with intent or gross negligence, thus warranting an appropriate reduction in liability. This ruling helps promote a social ethos of mutual care and green travel, while also serving as a reminder to motor vehicle drivers to exercise safe and prudent driving practices, thereby jointly safeguarding a safe and orderly road traffic environment.

 

Case 4

 

If an engineering-specialized motor vehicle is involved in an accident while traveling outside of public roads, the compulsory traffic accident liability insurance shall provide compensation.

— Case of tort liability dispute involving Cai, Cheng, and a certain insurance company, among others

 

[Basic Facts of the Case]

 

While reversing a concrete mixer at a construction site, Cheng inadvertently ran over and injured construction worker Cai. An expert assessment determined that Cai sustained a Grade‑6 disability. According to the certification issued by the public security traffic management authority, the accident occurred within the enclosed premises of the construction site and was classified as an on‑site safety incident, not a traffic accident. The concrete mixer was covered by compulsory motor vehicle liability insurance with a certain insurance company, and the accident took place during the policy period. Cai brought the matter before the court, seeking a judgment ordering Cheng, the insurance company, and others to compensate for medical expenses, disability compensation, and other losses. The insurance company contended that, since the incident did not constitute a traffic accident, it was not liable to make payment under the compulsory insurance.

 

[Judgment Result]

 

The trial court held that, pursuant to Article 119 of the Road Traffic Safety Law, a traffic accident refers to an incident involving personal injury or property damage caused by a vehicle on a road due to negligence or accident. Moreover, in accordance with Article 43 of the Regulations on Compulsory Motor Vehicle Traffic Accident Liability Insurance (hereinafter referred to as the “Compulsory Insurance Regulations”), when a motor vehicle is involved in an accident outside of public roads resulting in personal injury or property damage, the provisions of these Regulations shall apply mutatis mutandis. Although the accident in this case occurred in a construction zone off the roadway, it took place while a specialized engineering vehicle was operating within that area; therefore, the Compulsory Insurance Regulations should be applied by analogy. With respect to Cai’s reasonable losses, the insurance company shall compensate within the limits of the compulsory insurance liability. The final judgment ordered the insurance company to pay Cai more than RMB 180,000 within the scope of the compulsory insurance liability limit.

 

[Typical Significance]

 

As a statutorily mandated compulsory insurance, compulsory traffic accident liability insurance is designed to diversify the risks associated with motor vehicle operation and to provide timely relief to victims. In this case, the court held that when a motor vehicle engaged in specialized engineering operations causes an accident while traveling outside of public roads, such an incident, though not classified as a traffic accident, nonetheless falls within the scope of coverage under the compulsory insurance, which is required by law to provide compensation. This ruling underscores the crucial role of compulsory traffic accident liability insurance in risk diversification and damage redress, thereby effectively ensuring that victims receive prompt and adequate compensation for their losses.

 

Case 5

 

Where the road rescue fund management agency that has advanced payment of expenses brings a claim for reimbursement in a road traffic dispute case, the court shall, in accordance with the law, consolidate the proceedings.

— Case of a dispute over liability for a motor vehicle traffic accident involving Zhou, Pang, an insurance company, and the Road Rescue Fund Management Agency, among others.

 

[Basic Facts of the Case]

 

While driving a motor vehicle through a road intersection, Pang collided with an electric bicycle driven by Zhou, resulting in injuries to Zhou and damage to the bicycle. The public security traffic management authority determined that Pang bore primary responsibility for the accident, while Zhou bore secondary responsibility. The motor vehicle driven by Pang was insured with compulsory traffic liability insurance and commercial third-party liability insurance by a certain insurance company, and the accident occurred during the policy period. The Road Traffic Accident Social Assistance Fund (hereinafter referred to as the “Road Rescue Fund”) advanced 43,900 yuan toward Zhou’s emergency medical expenses. Zhou brought suit before the court, seeking compensation from Pang and the insurance company for all losses incurred. During the first-instance proceedings, the Road Rescue Fund, as a third party to the case, filed a claim requesting that Pang and Zhou reimburse the funds it had advanced for emergency treatment.

 

[Judgment Result]

 

The trial court held that, pursuant to Article 1216 of the Civil Code and Article 75 of the Road Traffic Safety Law, after the Road Rescue Fund has advanced all or part of the emergency medical expenses, its managing authority is entitled to seek reimbursement from the party responsible for the traffic accident. In this case, the Road Rescue Fund’s managing agency requested that the court address the advance payment of emergency medical expenses in a consolidated proceeding, which is legally justified and should be heard together. Pang and Zhou were assigned primary and secondary liability, respectively; based on the specific circumstances of the case, the court determined that Pang shall bear 80% of the liability, while Zhou shall bear 20%. The amounts advanced by the Road Rescue Fund are to be reimbursed by Pang and Zhou in proportion to their respective shares of liability. As Zhou’s losses do not exceed the insurance coverage limit, the relevant insurance company shall assume responsibility. Taking into account factors such as ease of enforcement, the court ultimately ruled: Pang shall reimburse the Road Rescue Fund over RMB 35,100 (i.e., RMB 43,900 × 80%), to be paid by the insurance company to the Road Rescue Fund’s managing agency; Zhou shall reimburse the Road Rescue Fund over RMB 8,700 (i.e., RMB 43,900 × 20%), to be deducted by the insurance company from the compensation payable to Zhou and remitted directly to the Road Rescue Fund’s managing agency; the remaining compensation shall be paid by the insurance company to Zhou.

 

[Typical Significance]

 

The Road Rescue Fund is a special public fund established in accordance with the law, intended to advance payment of funeral and emergency‑treatment expenses for victims of motor‑vehicle road traffic accidents. It serves both public‑interest and protective functions. The managing authority of the Road Rescue Fund is legally entitled to seek reimbursement from the parties liable for the accident for any amounts it has advanced. In adjudicating disputes over liability arising from motor‑vehicle traffic accidents, people’s courts may, in accordance with the law, consolidate into a single proceeding the claims brought by the Road Rescue Fund against all responsible parties. This approach not only facilitates the efficient resolution of disputes and reduces the litigation burden on the parties involved, but also helps ensure the stability and preservation of the Fund’s value, thereby sustaining its capacity to provide assistance and extending its benefits more broadly and equitably to the public.

 

Case 6

 

Where the injured party names both the non-motorized vehicle driver and the commercial third-party liability insurer as joint defendants, the people’s court shall, in accordance with the law, consolidate the cases for joint trial.

— Case of a non-motorized vehicle traffic accident liability dispute involving Cui, Zong, a certain company, and a certain insurance company, among others.

 

[Basic Facts of the Case]

 

Zong, an employee of a certain company, was riding an electric bicycle to perform work duties when he collided with Cui, resulting in injuries to Cui. The public security traffic management authority determined that Zong bore full responsibility for the accident, while Cui was found to be without fault. The electric bicycle was covered by commercial third-party liability insurance issued by a certain insurance company. Cui brought suit before the court, naming Zong, the company, and the insurance company as joint defendants and seeking joint compensation totaling over RMB 260,000 for all losses incurred. The insurance company argued that the insurance contract dispute should not be consolidated with the tort liability dispute arising from the traffic accident, and that it should not be designated as a joint defendant.

 

[Judgment Result]

 

The trial court held that, pursuant to Article 65 of the Insurance Law of the People’s Republic of China, once the liability of the insured under a liability insurance policy has been determined with respect to the injured third party, and the insured fails to make a claim, the third party is entitled to seek direct payment of the indemnity from the insurer for the portion to which it is entitled. The commercial third-party liability insurance for electric bicycles at issue functions similarly to the commercial third-party liability insurance for motor vehicles and is likewise designed to mitigate the risks of traffic accidents and protect the rights and interests of victims. In accordance with Article 22 of the Supreme People’s Court’s Interpretation on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Cases Involving Damage Compensation for Road Traffic Accidents, when a victim brings an action for liability arising from a non‑motorized vehicle accident and names the insurer providing commercial third-party liability coverage for such vehicles as a co‑defendant, consolidated adjudication by the people’s court facilitates the comprehensive resolution of the dispute and reduces the litigation burden on the parties. Since Mr. Zong caused harm while performing his official duties, any amount exceeding the insurance payout shall be borne by his employer, Company X. The final judgment ordered Company X to compensate Mr. Cui more than RMB 100,000 within the scope of the commercial third-party liability insurance, with the remaining shortfall to be covered by Company X.

 

[Typical Significance]

 

In recent years, the number of non-motorized vehicles in China has continued to rise, leading to a corresponding increase in traffic accident liability disputes involving such vehicles. Consequently, an increasing number of insurance companies have introduced commercial third-party liability insurance for non-motorized vehicles to help mitigate the risks arising from these accidents. In this case, the injured party brought both the tortfeasor and the insurer before the court, seeking compensation. The people’s court, by applying the relevant procedural rules applicable to motor vehicles and conducting a consolidated trial, not only facilitates the timely receipt of compensation by the victim and ensures a one‑stop resolution of the dispute, thereby reducing the burden on the parties, but also helps foster public awareness of the importance of mitigating risks through insurance and protecting others.

 

Q&A with the Press

 

Q: Both the Civil Code and the Road Traffic Safety Law contain provisions on road traffic safety, and judicial interpretations provide guidance for the accurate application of these laws in practice. Could you explain, apart from issuing judicial interpretations, what other measures the people’s courts employ to promote the implementation of these laws?

 

Answer: The Civil Code dedicates Chapter Five, “Liability for Motor Vehicle Traffic Accidents,” within its seventh part, “Tort Liability,” setting forth provisions on liability in motor vehicle traffic disputes through ten articles. In particular, it provides clear rules on issues that are both common and highly contentious in practice, such as the liability of vehicles operated under a nominal registration arrangement, the liability of vehicles whose ownership has not been transferred, and the liability of passengers traveling gratuitously. The Road Traffic Safety Law, enacted to maintain road traffic order, prevent and reduce traffic accidents, and protect personal safety and property, lays down specific regulations concerning vehicle and driver management, road traffic flow, and the handling of traffic accidents. Together, these two laws establish foundational rules covering the entire lifecycle of road traffic participation, thereby providing a robust legislative framework for the people’s courts to render sound judgments. Since their implementation, in addition to issuing relevant judicial interpretations to set the direction and clarify the applicable rules, the people’s courts have actively ensured the effective application of these laws through various measures, thus promoting good governance based on sound legislation.

 

First, we will promote the concerted efforts of all stakeholders in the implementation of the law. Under the leadership of local Party committees and the guidance of the Supreme People’s Court, courts across the country have strengthened inter‑departmental coordination to foster a concerted effort in the implementation of the law. Some courts, in response to the frequent involvement of insurance companies in road traffic disputes, regularly report litigation trends involving insurers to the relevant regulatory authorities, thereby promoting improved internal management within the industry, facilitating automatic claims settlement in accordance with the law, and ensuring that parties’ rights are promptly realized. Moreover, courts nationwide have enhanced mediation guidance, fully leveraging administrative, people’s, and sector‑specific mediation mechanisms, while providing mutual support and close cooperation, and intensifying pre‑litigation mediation efforts, so as to ensure that parties receive timely redress through the proper application of the law.

 

Second, we will actively provide guidance to lower-level units. Road traffic dispute cases are numerous and involve complex legal relationships, yet the existing laws and judicial interpretations do not cover all possible scenarios. For certain issues, formulating specific judicial interpretations remains premature; accordingly, we have adopted appropriate measures—such as providing answers through the Legal Q&A Platform and submitting case examples to the Supreme People’s Court Case Database—to offer guidance and clarify applicable legal principles, thereby ensuring consistent standards in adjudication. At present, with respect to road traffic disputes, by submitting relevant cases to the Supreme People’s Court Case Database, we have provided guidance on matters including liability determination in accidents involving motor vehicles and non-motorized vehicles, the duty to conspicuously disclose insurance exclusion clauses, the calculation of lost‑wage compensation, and the legal consequences of operating a vehicle without compulsory traffic insurance. Meanwhile, via the Legal Q&A Platform, we have offered preliminary guidance on legal issues arising in commercial third‑party liability insurance, such as the definition of “third party” and the computation of property damage. Going forward, we will solicit broad public input on these matters, conduct in-depth research, and develop more authoritative and well‑reasoned rules.

 

Third, strengthen the coordination of rule-of-law efforts and public awareness campaigns. The vitality of the law lies in its implementation. While it is essential to internalize the law, it must also be observed in practice. To ensure uniformity in law enforcement and to align the determination of liability by public security traffic management authorities with the allocation of civil liability by the people’s courts—thereby upholding the authority of the rule of law—the people’s courts have strengthened communication and coordination with these authorities. Through joint case studies and joint training sessions, they have reinforced the synergy between law enforcement and judicial proceedings. Moreover, by inviting observers to court hearings, holding press conferences, and publishing model cases, the people’s courts have intensified efforts to publicize and promote codes of conduct and adjudicatory principles, fostering a societal consensus on the rule of law and extending the reach and influence of legal governance in the field of road traffic.

 

Question: Could you please describe the efforts and explorations undertaken by the people’s courts in improving the mechanisms for adjudicating road traffic dispute cases?

 

Answer: People’s courts have strengthened their awareness of issues, adhered to a problem‑oriented approach, and continuously refined their adjudicatory mechanisms by focusing on the distinctive features of road traffic disputes and the characteristics of dispute‑resolution methods.

 

First, strengthen the identification and analysis of issues. By means of judicial data consultations, big‑data analysis of case information, public letters and visits, frequent inquiries from lower courts, and feedback from relevant departments, we identify emerging characteristics and trends in traffic‑related disputes, enabling timely assessment of new circumstances and issues. For example, our research has revealed that non‑motorized vehicle accident liability cases have been growing rapidly in recent years, yet it was previously unclear whether, following the model of motor‑vehicle accident disputes, such cases could be procedurally consolidated for joint adjudication. Article 11, Paragraph 1 of the Supreme People’s Court’s Interpretation (II) on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Road Traffic Accident Damage Compensation Cases (hereinafter “Interpretation (II)”) provides that when a party brings a non‑motorized vehicle accident liability action against the tortfeasor and simultaneously names the insurer providing commercial third‑party liability coverage for the non‑motorized vehicle as a defendant and seeks compensation from that insurer, the people’s court shall hear the cases jointly. Paragraph 2 further clarifies the order of compensation: first, the insurer under the commercial third‑party liability policy shall compensate according to the terms of the insurance contract; any shortfall shall then be borne by the tortfeasor. This provision establishes an institutional framework for the integrated resolution of non‑motorized vehicle accident disputes in practice, facilitating comprehensive settlement of the underlying controversies, alleviating the litigation burden on the parties, and reducing the costs of dispute resolution.

 

Second, strengthen specialized adjudication. People’s courts have strengthened specialized adjudication of road traffic dispute cases, leveraging expertise to uphold authority and promote fairness. In light of the complex legal relationships and numerous procedural stages involved in such disputes, many local courts have established dedicated adjudicatory teams and bolstered their judicial capacities. Some courts have adopted a “elements‑based” trial approach, drafting judgment documents that clearly articulate the key points of contention for cases where the focal issues are well‑defined, thereby ensuring high‑quality, efficient rulings. For the road traffic dispute cases they handle, people’s courts place great emphasis on thorough analysis and post‑case review, distilling adjudicatory rules and summarizing patterns in dispute resolution—thus achieving uniformity in judicial standards while facilitating the replication and dissemination of best practices.

 

Third, strengthen technology-driven empowerment. By promoting the remote and intelligent handling of road traffic dispute resolution, we have enhanced the efficiency of processing such cases and continuously improved the quality of judicial services that are convenient and beneficial to the public. For example, some courts have strengthened data sharing with public security traffic management departments, forensic institutions, insurance companies, and other relevant entities, achieving end-to-end data integration across mediation, appraisal, litigation, and claims settlement. With a single-click login, parties can handle all aspects of road traffic disputes online, eliminating the need for in-person visits and enabling swift resolution of accident-related disputes. These measures have yielded significant results.

 

Question: As the number of vehicles on the road continues to grow and people’s travel becomes increasingly frequent, road traffic accidents are more likely to occur, and related disputes tend to rise accordingly. How, then, should the people’s courts respond to this situation?

 

Answer: Traffic accidents can cause inconvenience and even suffering to the parties involved and their families. Once a dispute arises, it typically unfolds through multiple stages and procedures, including accident determination by the public security traffic management authorities, expert appraisal or loss assessment by relevant institutions, medical treatment provided by healthcare facilities, and dispute resolution by the people’s courts or other competent bodies. If proactive measures are not taken to strengthen source‑level governance and substantive resolution of road‑traffic disputes, mitigating the consequences of accidents and settling conflicts among all parties will prove time‑consuming, labor‑intensive, and only marginally effective, thereby significantly undermining the public’s sense of gain and well‑being.

 

In judicial practice, the people’s courts have thoroughly implemented the “Fengqiao Experience” of the new era, adopting a holistic approach that goes beyond individual cases to prevent case‑by‑case adjudication and mechanical application of the law. Grounded in prevention, oriented toward the grassroots level, strengthened by mediation, and supported by comprehensive measures, they have worked in concert with relevant departments to establish a fair, efficient, and citizen‑friendly mechanism for handling road traffic dispute resolution. Overall, we have focused our efforts on the following three key areas:

 

First, we will promote source‑level prevention of traffic accidents. People’s courts adhere to the principle of “addressing issues at their source and preventing problems before they arise,” carefully analyzing the safety shortcomings and public concerns revealed in road traffic dispute cases. They adopt appropriate measures to collaboratively advance preventive efforts at the root level, using the “small entry point” of individual cases to help build a broader framework for safe travel and forestall accidents. Some courts, upon identifying road safety hazards during case adjudication, promptly submit recommendations to relevant authorities—such as optimizing traffic signal timing, installing conspicuous warning signs, and removing obstructions—which are widely endorsed, met with positive responses, and swiftly acted upon to eliminate potential risks, thereby effectively preventing the recurrence of similar incidents. Other courts, recognizing the concentration of logistics industrial parks or the high numbers of ride-hailing vehicles and food-delivery riders within their jurisdictions, work in coordination with pertinent departments and local communities to provide on-site consultations, organize training on accident‑prevention materials, and jointly deliberate ways to improve traffic management, thus mitigating risk factors and eliminating hazardous conditions.

 

Second, we will promote the resolution of disputes at the front end. We have conducted an in-depth analysis of the root causes underlying traffic‑related disputes—ranging from their emergence and escalation into litigation to repeated litigation and the intensification of conflicts—and strengthened relevant working mechanisms. By adopting targeted measures at every stage, from proactive mediation to early‑stage dispute resolution, we have addressed shortcomings and filled gaps, striving to ensure timely settlement of disputes and enabling the public to fully experience fairness and justice. Our research indicates that resolving traffic‑related disputes through mediation or at the first-instance level not only significantly reduces parties’ costs and expedites redress and the realization of rights, but also helps foster and reinforce sound dispute‑resolution practices. Targeting the persistent challenges and bottlenecks in practice, we have focused our efforts on specific areas. For instance, mediation institutions and grassroots people’s courts have reported that, in certain complex and difficult cases, difficulties in applying the law and a lack of clear guidance on adjudicative standards often lead to uncertainty among the parties, making it hard for them to make informed decisions and thus delaying resolution. In response, we have, through the 2020 amendment to the “Interpretation on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Cases Involving Compensation for Damages Resulting from Road Traffic Accidents,” the 2022 revision of the “Interpretation on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Personal Injury Compensation Cases,” and the issuance of this “Interpretation (II),” guided grassroots courts and mediation bodies to thoroughly ascertain the facts, clarify rights and obligations, and formulate well‑grounded solutions. These measures have enhanced the credibility of dispute‑resolution outcomes and the transparency of the process, thereby fundamentally strengthening both the speed and effectiveness of front‑end dispute resolution.

 

Third, we will ensure the substantive resolution of disputes. In accordance with legal principles and statutory procedures, the people’s courts have established scientifically sound and reasonably structured litigation processes and rules, seamlessly integrating and streamlining mediation‑litigation procedures while consolidating and optimizing relevant stages of the litigation process. Through one‑stop dispute resolution mechanisms and other measures, they guide parties to resolve disputes in a proper and convenient manner. Articles 10 and 11 of the newly issued Interpretation (II) vividly reflect this approach, helping to prevent procedural complexity and cumbersome methods from causing parties undue anxiety or inflicting “secondary harm.” At the same time, the people’s courts appropriately apply judicial assistance in their work, seeking the “optimal solution” to issues of public concern in the most reassuring and effective way, thereby reducing the litigation burden on the parties.

 

( Source: News Bureau of the Supreme People’s Court)