news

한어Русский языкEnglishFrançaisIndonesianSanskrit日本語DeutschPortuguêsΕλληνικάespañolItalianoSuomalainenLatina

in judicial practice, the courts have also ruled that online car-hailing drivers bear the main responsibility for similar traffic accidents. this shows that online car-hailing drivers should bear more legal obligations besides driving, which has been supported by judicial authorities.

ouyang chenyu丨legal scholar

another "door-opening" incident. according to the official wechat account of the chengdu longquanyi public security bureau, on september 6, 2024, a traffic accident occurred on the tiane west lake south road section of longquanyi district. the driver liu drove an online car-hailing vehicle with three passengers and stopped at the bend of tiane west lake south road to drop off passengers. the rear passenger jiang opened the right rear door, causing the electric bicycle driver xu and the passenger zhao who were driving normally behind the right rear of the vehicle to be hit and fall to the ground and injured. the three passengers on the online car-hailing vehicle got off one after another and went forward to check and inquire. the online car-hailing driver liu did not get off the car to check and drove away directly.

after the electric bicycle passenger zhao called the police, the traffic police department determined in accordance with the law that the online car-hailing driver liu was primarily responsible for the traffic accident, the online car-hailing passenger jiang was secondarily responsible, and the electric bicycle driver xu and the passenger zhao were not responsible for the accident.

regarding this "door-opening killing" incident, many people's first feeling is that the back-seat passenger jiang needs to bear full responsibility, because he cannot open the door directly when getting off the car. he needs to observe whether there are passing pedestrians and vehicles first. this is the most basic traffic common sense.

looking through the "road traffic safety law implementation regulations", it is clearly stipulated that when a motor vehicle temporarily stops on the road, "the door shall not be opened or passengers shall not get on or off before the vehicle stops completely, and the opening and closing of the door shall not hinder the passage of other vehicles and pedestrians", and when riding in a motor vehicle, "the opening and closing of the door shall not hinder the passage of other vehicles and pedestrians". many people believe that in this traffic accident, the door was opened improperly by the passenger jiang. at this moment, the driver liu was still sitting in the front seat, so how could he be held primarily responsible? whoever is responsible should bear the responsibility, and whoever caused the trouble should solve it. this is also the reason why the driver "drove away directly" after the accident.

the problem is that after reviewing this traffic accident, the driver liu was not so innocent. according to the road traffic safety law, motor vehicles cannot be parked at will and must be parked at designated locations. liu stopped temporarily at a bend in the road to drop off passengers, obstructing the passage of other vehicles, which is illegal parking.

furthermore, as an online car-hailing driver, it is a contractual obligation and a legal responsibility to deliver passengers to their destination safely. after the operating vehicle stops, the driver should remind passengers to pay attention to the vehicles coming from behind when opening the door. unfortunately, liu did not complete these prescribed actions, so he did not fulfill his obligation to provide corresponding safety reminders.

not only that, the "road traffic safety law" also stipulates that "when a traffic accident occurs on the road, the driver of the vehicle shall stop immediately, protect the scene, and promptly report to the traffic police on duty or the traffic management department of the public security organ", "if personal injury or death is caused, the driver of the vehicle shall immediately rescue the injured person", "passengers, passing vehicle drivers, and passers-by shall provide assistance", etc.

after the traffic accident happened, the driver liu thought he had nothing to do with it. he neither got out of the car to protect the scene nor called the police in time. instead, he left the scene on his own, which made a mistake upon a mistake.

of course, objectively speaking, the passengers also have some responsibility. if the online car-hailing passenger jiang had not opened the car door recklessly, the electric bicycle driver and passengers would not have fallen and been injured. after the traffic accident, jiang and others left the scene directly due to unsuccessful communication with the other party, and did not fulfill the prescribed legal obligations. this is also an indisputable fact.

taking all these circumstances into consideration, there is nothing wrong with the online car-hailing driver liu moumou bearing the main responsibility and the online car-hailing passenger jiang mou bearing the secondary responsibility. in judicial practice, the court also ruled that the online car-hailing driver bears the main responsibility for similar traffic accidents. this shows that online car-hailing drivers should bear more legal obligations besides driving, which has been supported by judicial organs.

when online ride-hailing passengers "open the door to kill" and cause injuries, drivers and passengers cannot stay out of it. as passengers, when getting on and off the car, they must observe carefully and open the door carefully; as online ride-hailing drivers, they must park legally and fulfill their obligations of safety reminders. this is the only way to more effectively prevent the recurrence of "open the door to kill" and effectively protect the safety of pedestrians and vehicles.