Comic by Yang Zhihong
Mr. Qiu parked his car in the open space in front of his house, only to find out that a two-year-old child had quietly slipped into the 20+ centimeters gap between the car body and the wall. The car owner did not notice before driving, unfortunately injuring the child. In such circumstances, should the family bear responsibility for inadequate supervision? Recently, the Second Court ruled that the car owner was fully responsible. So what exactly happened?
The Child Was Hidden And Got Hit By A Car
On April 14th this year, Mr. Qiu drove a small passenger car back to his residence in Dalang Town, preparing to retrieve some goods from his rented house. As usual, he parked his car on an open space in front of the door. One side of the car was tightly against a wall, with only 20+ centimeters distance between them.
When parking, Mr. Qiu noticed that a two-year-old child next door was playing alone on the vacant ground in front of the car, but he didn't pay much attention to it. About ten minutes later, Mr. Qiu returned to the car from inside the house and started driving. Out of habit, he looked around the front and back of the vehicle before driving out and found no abnormalities, so he drove forward.
However, after driving less than one meter, Mr. Qiu felt something blocking the car's progress. He quickly got out of the car to check. It turned out that the two-year-old child who was originally playing in front had actually lain beside the right rear wheel of the vehicle, obviously having been hit! Hearing the child's cries, the mother rushed over, and together they sent the child to the hospital for emergency treatment.
There is Controversy Over How Accident Responsibility Should Be Divided
After the incident, Mr. Qiu was very regretful, and he had deliberately checked the surrounding environment before starting the car. "I looked at the front and back, but I didn't look at the right side of the car because there was a cement retaining wall on the right, my car was placed relatively close to the cement retaining wall, only about 20+ centimeters away, so I didn't expect there would be a child playing there."
Fortunately, the child was not in mortal danger, diagnosed with lung bleeding, rib fractures, and multiple bruises. The child was hospitalized for more than two months, costing over 20,000 yuan in medical expenses. Since Mr. Qiu had previously purchased relevant compulsory traffic insurance, the insurance company paid 10,000 yuan, the remaining part was paid 9508 yuan by the child's family, and Mr. Qiu paid 4000 yuan.
The traffic police department determined through on-site investigation that Mr. Qiu was fully responsible for the accident. Mr. Qiu had objections, believing that he did not drive in violation of regulations and promptly rescued the child after the accident occurred. Moreover, the child's family had significant negligence in supervision and should bear all the accident responsibilities, thus refusing to pay medical expenses. In May this year, the child's family filed a lawsuit with the Second People's Court of Dongguan, bringing Mr. Qiu to court.
The Court Ruled That The Driver Was Fully Responsible
The court believed that the vacant land where the accident occurred was a necessary passage for residents in the village to enter and exit their houses. This area was not a dedicated road section for motor vehicles. When motor vehicle drivers park or start their vehicles in this area, they should be highly attentive and comprehensively check the surroundings of the vehicle to avoid potential dangers. At the time of the accident, the injured child was under two years old and did not possess sufficient ability to foresee danger. Meanwhile, the child often played in this area. For Mr. Qiu, he failed to comprehensively check the surroundings of the vehicle before starting it and did not fully exclude potential dangers, violating the duty of safe and civilized driving. Therefore, he should bear full responsibility for the accident.
Mr. Qiu claimed that the guardian had major negligence, but he failed to provide relevant evidence. According to the interrogation records of the traffic police department, at the time of the accident, the child was playing on the vacant land in front of the house. Since this place was not a dedicated road section for motor vehicles, objectively speaking, the possibility of guardians predicting that the child might suffer personal injury due to a motor vehicle collision in such an environment was relatively small. Thus, it was unnecessary for the guardian to strictly supervise the child at that time. Meanwhile, the child was always within the guardian's line of sight or sound range. After the accident occurred, the guardian immediately arrived at the accident scene. Therefore, the guardian did not have any significant fault in supervision.
In the end, the court ruled that the defendant Mr. Qiu should compensate the plaintiff for 9508 yuan in medical expenses. Mr. Qiu did not appeal, and the judgment has taken effect.