Successful Case Review of Traffic Accidents

According to Article 133 of the Criminal Law and the relevant provisions of the Supreme People's Court's Interpretation on Several Issues Concerning the Specific Application of Law in the Trial of Criminal Cases of Traffic Accidents, if a traffic accident results in one death, and the driver bears the main or all responsibility for the accident, the driver is suspected of the crime of causing a traffic accident. Therefore, when the consequences of the accident cannot be changed, the responsibility for the accident becomes the most central and critical point of contention in the crime of causing a traffic accident. The criminal defense of traffic accidents focuses on responsibility determination and review. There is only one opportunity for review, and it is also the most effective way (even the only way in practical operation) to change the responsibility, and must be grasped with all efforts.

At approximately 5:56 am on a certain day, Wei Moumou, driving a XX-numbered ordinary two-wheeled motorcycle, was traveling east to west along the XX route to the XX kilometer point, when it collided with an unnumbered two-wheeled electric vehicle driven by Jiang Moumou, which was making a left turn in the fast lane of the same national highway. The accident resulted in damage to both vehicles and injuries to both individuals. After the accident, Wei Moumou fled the scene and was apprehended later. Jiang Moumou died after failing to respond to rescue at the hospital the next day.

Traffic Accident Appraisal Opinion:

1. Jiang Moumou died of craniocerebral injury due to the traffic accident;

2. The two vehicles collided;

3. There was no surveillance at the scene of the incident.

The XX Public Security Bureau Traffic Management Detachment issued a "Road Traffic Accident Determination", determining that Wei Moumou was mainly responsible for the accident, and Jiang Moumou was secondarily responsible.

Wei Moumou disagreed with the accident determination and applied for a review. A new investigation and determination opinion was issued, ordering the original case-handling unit to reinvestigate and redetermine.

The XX Traffic Police Detachment issued a "Road Traffic Accident Review Conclusion", determining that the original "Road Traffic Accident Determination" was unclear and ordering the XX City Public Security Bureau Traffic Management Detachment to reinvestigate and redetermine.

The main opinion of the first responsibility determination was: Wei Moumou violated the provisions of Article 70, paragraph 1 of the "People's Republic of China Road Traffic Safety Law", with the "act of escaping". According to Article 61 of the "Implementation Regulations of the People's Republic of China Road Traffic Safety Law", "the parties shall bear full responsibility under any of the following circumstances: (1) escaping after a road traffic accident; (2) intentionally destroying, forging the scene, or destroying evidence." To evade legal responsibility, the party who abandoned the vehicle and escaped or absconded, if there is evidence to prove that other parties are also at fault, the responsibility can be appropriately reduced. However, if there is evidence to prove that the escaping party has the circumstances in paragraph 2 of the first paragraph, the responsibility will not be reduced. Although Jiang Moumou existed in the act of borrowing the road without stopping or slowing down to observe before borrowing the road, the fact that Wei Moumou "escaped" exists, bearing the main responsibility for the accident, and Jiang Moumou bearing the secondary responsibility for the accident.

After the initial accident responsibility determination was made, the parties realized the seriousness of the problem. In the face of the possible criminal liability, within three days of the review period, Wei Moumou sought legal assistance from Lawyer Wang Hui of Zhejiang Hangtianxin Law Firm.

After accepting the commission, the lawyer immediately learned about the incident from Wei Moumou, conducted an on-site investigation, and applied to review the relevant records of the first responsibility determination. It was confirmed that both parties left the scene on their own accord, and the deceased did not show any obvious physical discomfort at the time. Due to the lack of on-site surveillance, there was a dispute over whether the escape could be determined. Wei Moumou's act of leaving the scene cannot be determined as an act of escaping to evade legal responsibility. Therefore, relevant legal opinions were put forward for review, and Wei Moumou was asked to actively provide appropriate compensation to the deceased's family and seek their forgiveness. During the subsequent review process, both parties in the accident reached an agreement, and the immediate relatives of the deceased forgave Wei Moumou, laying a good foundation for the review and re-determination of responsibility.

The newly issued accident determination describes the course of the accident as follows: "After the accident, both Wei Moumou and Jiang Moumou left the scene. Jiang Moumou later died after failing to respond to rescue at a municipal people's hospital." The determination of responsibility is described as follows: Based on the above situation, Wei Moumou's actions violated Article 22, paragraph 1 of the "People's Republic of China Road Traffic Safety Law": "Motor vehicle drivers shall abide by the provisions of road traffic safety laws and regulations, and drive safely and civilly in accordance with operating standards." Jiang Moumou's actions violated Article 34, paragraph 3 of Anhui Province's Implementation of the "People's Republic of China Road Traffic Safety Law": "Vehicles borrowing lanes shall give priority to vehicles or pedestrians traveling in their own lanes. Before borrowing a lane, they must stop or slow down and observe, making sure it is safe before proceeding. When passing, they should do so quickly and should not linger." According to Article 91 of the "Implementation Regulations of the People's Republic of China Road Traffic Safety Law" and Article 60, paragraph 1, item 2 of the "Road Traffic Accident Handling Procedures",

Wei Moumou bears equal responsibility for the accident; Jiang Moumou bears equal responsibility for the accident.

Thus, the criminal risk of the party Wei Moumou was directly eliminated. Generally, the success rate of a review is around 20%, or even lower. This involves not only legal issues but also other professional issues. After the accident, each person's perspective on the problem is different. Traffic police officers, when handling accidents, may sometimes have limitations in their subjective awareness. At the same time, the tremendous pressure brought by the deceased's family makes it difficult for the traffic police department to objectively determine the facts.

In addition, in many cases involving personal injury, there may be a flavor of local protectionism, meaning that they may be more biased towards local people. This is understandable.

Also, when traffic police officers handle traffic accidents, they often develop a "set way of thinking" at the first scene. For example, traffic police officers at the scene may have preemptively determined that leaving the scene is escaping. With the notion of "the deceased is paramount", it is difficult to easily determine the deceased as equally or primarily responsible. The traffic police officers may, intentionally or unintentionally, collect evidence that supports this responsibility and omit some evidence that is unfavorable to the party, and when writing the record, they tend to write towards the direction of the party evading responsibility.

For car owners, regardless of the size of the accident, they must handle it according to normal legal regulations, otherwise, they will not only bear economic compensation but may also bear criminal responsibility.

First, in traffic accident cases, the "Accident Responsibility Determination" is the "bible", equivalent to objective facts. If there is a fact determination in this document that is unfavorable to the party, it must be corrected during the review, and one cannot hope that subsequent judicial organs will make different interpretations and determinations of the facts.

Second, the lack of on-site surveillance means that the facts of the case have different possibilities.

Third, the review and redetermination of the accident not only depend on the professional work of lawyers but also require the parties to handle the relationship with the close relatives of the deceased, and mutual cooperation will enable the determining authorities to rest assured in changing the determination of responsibility.

In short, the determination of responsibility for traffic accidents varies, and it is still necessary to rely on the actual situation. At the same time, the traffic police themselves have a certain degree of discretionary power, and the change of responsibility can only be carried out within this power.

The professional articles or case analyses published in this official account only represent the author's personal views. They should not be considered legal advice or suggestions from our firm, nor do they constitute an endorsement, guarantee, or recommendation of any institution or product mentioned in the articles by our firm. Our firm also does not guarantee that the content will be updated after the date shown in the article. Our firm shall not bear any responsibility for any actions or inactions taken based on the whole or part of this article, and any consequences arising therefrom.