motorcycle accidents attorneys

motorcycle accidents attorneys

Register filing traffic accident records, traffic police department is the of cases handled by public alarm, the alarm time is at 10:10 on September 16, 2005, the alarm mode for the phone alarm, report says "on the 28th floor (hotel) at the door of a Automobile and motorcycle collision injuries, car escape, license plate number is 20708. "
Scene of the accident the traffic police department plans the production of records, motor vehicle driving direction the parties widths of 7 meters, motor vehicle lanes and non-motor vehicle lanes separated by a green belt, non-motor vehicle road width of 5 meters. Non-motor vehicle road junction with a truck was braking into prints, prints Braking length of 5.7 meters. Meanwhile, the witnesses to the accident scene graph 28 recorded layer (Hotel) Security Wu, car cleaners and so on.
September 22, 2005, the traffic police department investigation to the witness Wu, Wu stated: ". That morning, I was at (28 layers) East Gate booth duty, facing northeast. (I) saw the north roundabout south to a motorcycle and a car. when they travel to my east, the motorcycle toppled by a car, car did not stop to go directly to the Nankai. I was standing west of the accident site is non- Road edge of the vehicle from the accident site 4 to 5 meters. At that time, cars and motorcycles were traveling south from the north over the wheel, the motorcycle in front of the car behind the motorcycle. After the two vehicles had a turntable, car start overta

king, overtaking on the car, motorcycle collide with the scratch. car is from the left side of the motorcycle is a motorcycle east of overtaking. two-car collision blown after the motorcycle until fall. is the right front side of the car and the motorcycle hit the left side. car drove off without stopping. I saw the (vehicle license plate number), license plate number is Su-F-20708, a red car. gay men on a motorcycle. both the accident I do not know. "
On the same day, the traffic police department to witness investigation, statement: ". I was standing on the accident site to the east, away from the accident with 11-12 meters of the way. I saw the motorcycle and the car is coming from the north of the turntable south. motorbike in front of the car when the motorcycle fell over motorcycle. car did not stop, just a little too slow, or brought you the brakes, fuel door and then go. I did see the car from a motorcycle East side of overtaking, and motorcycle collision scratch. Specifically, what parts of the car and motorcycle collision, and I did not see. because the car in the east, blocking the motorcycle. but I saw the motorcycle before the car falls from a very close thing , looks like the two cars stick together in the east look like. (car''s license plate number) is the number of Su F-20708 Red car. I am a car cleaner, do not know the motorcycle driver. "
Accordingly, the court held that the plaintiff Zhang fell from the motorcycle injuries, only the accused Wang of the drive to their nearest car. Zhang injured plaintiff''s fall there are three main possibilities: First, automobile and motorcycle collide, but it is difficult to ascertain the cause of modern technology; the second is a car body parts Zhang real hit, but suddenly because the incident Zhang a state of tension among the not discern a motorcycle or a car crash of the body; third motorcycle hit a car and neither body has not met Zhang, simply because the two vehicles are too close, Zhang brake measures taken process due to tension and fall.
Is presumed facts of the case
According to the parties a statement of the public security organs, combined with eyewitness testimony, can be identified intersection of the two vehicles when the plaintiff Zhang, braking measures have been taken. Normally, Zhang does not brake for no reason suddenly to take measures it considers not only insufficient to avoid dangerous braking measures taken only when the implementation of the sudden braking. Wang accused of driving motor vehicle accident compared to drivers of motor vehicles, Zhang plaintiff, the ability to avoid danger, and the line from behind to overtake Zhang, so the defendant and the plaintiff Zhang Wang activities engaged in the same traffic conditions, the burden under the principle of priority, its heavier traffic safety duty of care responsibility. As long as the defendant, the plaintiff in automotive collision Wang Zhang motorcycle or physical cause it to fall, or the car too close to Zhang, Wang, motorcycle led them to take urgent measures to fall, Wang fault should be above the normal increase in responsibility. The present case, even if there is no evidence to prove that the accused Wang of the Department of plaintiff Zhang driving their car collision falls or injury after the body, but the accident scene diagrams and photographs, comprehensive analysis of the testimony of witnesses, Wang found the defendant at least when driving beyond the too close to the plaintiff Zhang, Zhang created a dangerous to the plaintiff, leading to a sudden brake to measure Zhang fall injuries, and should take the case found the defendant Wang, the primary responsibility. Zhang plaintiff driving and not wearing a safety helmet for driving motorcycle does not match the two, clearly illegal acts, is the accident factor, which should bear the responsibility for minor incidents.
Zhang injured in the accident the plaintiff has received compensation for medical expenses, loss of working time, care, these payments, follow-up treatment costs, loss of disability compensation and other rights. Zhang claimed the plaintiff was bound to follow-up treatment costs and costs incurred by a medical certificate issued by the department, should be supported. Zhang maimed because the plaintiff, the discretion to determine the spirit of the compensation for pain, is at the discretion of 3,000 yuan. Because the defendant insurance company for the defendant motor vehicle accident driving Wang set a third-party liability insurance, so the defendant insurance company shall be third party liability insurance according to law within the limit of compensation for the loss of the plaintiff Zhang. Zhang losses for the plaintiff third party liability insurance limits in excess of partial loss of responsibility should be borne by the defendant according to Wang. Then according to "Republic of China on Road Traffic Safety Law," Supreme Court "to hear cases of personal injury compensation law applicable to the interpretation of a number of issues," Supreme Court "on the determination of tort liability for damages the spirit of a number of issues of interpretation" of the relevant provisions of the , made the above decision.
This case primarily involves "the burden on the principle of priority" in the application on the presumption of fact. Excellent in principle, also known as excellent in the burden of the principle of compensation, or to bear the principle of priority, which is handling traffic generated by a new principle. The main spirit of the principles are: treatment in the accident to the vehicle crash risk in the human body size, and ability to avoid risk factors to distinguish the risk of accident responsibility. Determine the priority of those principles: better than the behavior of the vehicle, sound better than adults, young, old and disabled. Zeyi vehicle deceleration, such as better performance control, or to speed, quality, hardness, size and other more dangerous to others are all excellent. Superior responsibility to bear the risk that the compensation responsibility. "Excellent to bear the principle" used, that the two sides of traffic accidents, in the proportion of responsibility is obviously based on the past, "contributory negligence as responsible for" different, that is, the amount of compensation to determine the proportion of different commitments.
This principle has long been the law in many developed countries, surely the rule of law, "Road Traffic Safety Law of the People''s Republic," which are also made preliminary affirmative. Article 76 of the Act provides that: "motor vehicle traffic accidents cause personal injury, property damage, the insurance companies in the motor vehicle third party liability insurance for compensation within the limits of liability. Exceed the liability limit of the section, assume the following ways liability: (a) traffic accidents between motor vehicles, and by the responsible party at fault; the two sides are at fault, shall each bear their share of the liabilities. (b) motor vehicle and non-motor vehicle drivers, pedestrians traffic accident occurs between the motor vehicle shall bear the responsibility; However, there is evidence that non-motor vehicle drivers, pedestrians violating traffic safety laws, regulations, motor vehicle drivers have to take the necessary measures to deal with, and to reduce motor vehicle shall the responsibility. "implementation of this principle, the protection of" vulnerable "the rights of a party to play a more active role.
The special case handling is excellent in principle this is the responsibility of the burden on a recognized principle, the judge will extend it to areas of presumed facts of the case. In fact, the advantages of vehicle deceleration, control, and so superior to vulnerable vehicles, strong ability to avoid danger in the event of a dispute the facts found the accident, the vehicle from the perspective of benefit for moderate weak presumption is in line with the principle of fairness. Therefore, the advantages of the vehicle bears a heavier traffic safety duty of care. The present case, even if there is no evidence to prove that the accused Wang of the Department of plaintiff Zhang driving their car collision falls or injury after the body, but the accident scene diagrams and photographs, comprehensive analysis of the testimony of witnesses and the burden of combining excellent in principle, at least be able to identify Wang, beyond the defendant with the plaintiff driving too close to Zhang, Zhang created a danger to the plaintiff, leading to a sudden brake to measure Zhang fall injuries, and should take the case found the defendant Wang, the primary responsibility.

Friends Links: Automation Control Blog


Weight Loss