阳光热线案例一：

[案情简介及争议焦点]

2008年01月11日19时40分许,杭州市萧山区党湾镇新前村8组村民沈某骑无牌电瓶车,由西向东行驶至萧山区义蓬镇义蓬村益民12组的T字路口,因该道路南侧有裂缝,裂缝南侧与北侧相差约10厘米,造成其摔倒受伤，后经医院抢救无效死亡,电动车损坏。

根据现场勘察，证人证言及检验、鉴定结论，对事故作出如下认定：沈某未取得机动车驾驶证驾驶未经公安机关登记的电动车上路行驶，在行驶中操作不当，其行为违反了《中华人民共和国道路安全交通法》第19条第1款的规定：“驾驶机动车，应当依法取得机动车驾驶证。”第8条规定：“国家对机动车实行登记制度。机动车经公安机关交通管理部门登记后，方可上道路行驶。尚未登记的机动车，需要临时上道路行驶的，应当取得临时通行牌证。”第21条第1款规定：“机动车驾驶人应当遵守道路安全法律、法规的规定，按照操作规范安全驾驶、文明驾驶。”在此次事故中，沈永华的交通安全违法行为是造成此事故发生的直接原因，负事故全部责任。

事发后半年内，其家人多次向事故发生地萧山区义蓬镇镇政府要求讨个说法，但他们以杭州市公安局萧山区分局交通警察大队作出的受害人沈某负事故全部责任交通事故认定书为由，拒绝任何赔偿。

因双方未达成一致意见，沈某家属将镇政府告上法庭。

争议焦点： 1、公安交警部门的责任认定能否作为人民法院审理案件划分责任的定案依据？1、本案沈某在事故中负全责，镇政府能否免责？

[裁判要点]

萧山交通警察大队的责任认定依据是《中华人民共和国道路交通安全法》、《中华人民共和国道路交通安全法实施条例》和《交通事故处理程序规定》，其对交通事故责任的认定具有行政性质，而人民法院是根据《中华人民共和国民法通则》和相关司法解释。根据最高人民法院和公安部联合下发的《关于道路交通事故案件有关问题的通知》（即法发[1992]39号）第4条规定：“人民法院审理交通事故时，经审查认为公安机关所做出的责任认定确实不妥，则不予采信，以人民法院审理认定的事实作为定案依据。”所以事故责任认定书在人民法院审理民事案件中只能作为证据使用。

法院审理查明，事发地段是镇政府所建村级公路，该道路南侧有裂缝,裂缝南侧与北侧相差约10厘米，直接导致沈某驾驶的电瓶车刹车不及车身失控而发生事故。

法院审理认为，在此次事故中，受害人沈某无证驾驶且未戴头盔，行驶时疏于对路面情况观察，车速过快以至于失控，这些行为是造成事故的主要原因。而被告镇政府系村级公路的修建出资人和实际管理人，对裂缝的存在及对行驶安全的影响未予以足够的重视，应负事故的次要责任。

经法院调解，被告镇政府赔偿事故损失的30％，即人民币4万元。

Sunshine Hotline Case 1:

[Brief Introduction to the Case and Focus of Dispute]

At around 19:40 on January 11, 2008, Shen, a villager from Group 8, Xinqian Village, Dangwan Town, Xiaoshan District, Hangzhou, rode an unlicensed electric vehicle from west to east to the T-shaped intersection of Yimin Group 12, Yipeng Village, Yipeng Town, Xiaoshan District. Due to a crack on the south side of the road, the difference between the south and north sides of the crack was about 10 centimeters, causing him to fall and be injured. However, after being rescued by the hospital, he died and the electric vehicle was damaged.

Based on on-site investigation, witness testimony, and inspection and appraisal conclusions, the following determination is made regarding the accident: Shen drove an electric vehicle without obtaining a motor vehicle driver's license and was not registered with the public security organ on the road, and operated improperly during driving, Its behavior violates the provisions of Article 19, Paragraph 1 of the Road Safety and Traffic Law of the People's Republic of China: "To drive a motor vehicle, a motor vehicle driver's license shall be obtained in accordance with the law." Article 8 stipulates: "The state implements a registration system for motor vehicles. Motor vehicles can only be driven on the road after being registered by the traffic management department of the public security organ. Unregistered motor vehicles that need to be temporarily driven on the road shall obtain a temporary pass Article 21 (1) stipulates: "Motor vehicle drivers shall comply with the provisions of road safety laws and regulations, drive safely and in a civilized manner according to operating standards." In this accident, Shen Yonghua's traffic safety violations were the direct cause of the accident, and he shall bear full responsibility for the accident.

Within six months after the incident, his family repeatedly requested an explanation from the government of Yipeng Town in Xiaoshan District, where the accident occurred. However, they refused any compensation on the grounds of the victim Shen being fully responsible for the traffic accident, which was determined by the Traffic Police Brigade of Xiaoshan District Branch of Hangzhou Public Security Bureau.

Due to the lack of consensus between the two parties, Shen's family brought the town government to court.

Dispute focus: 1. Can the responsibility determination of the public security and traffic police department serve as the basis for determining the division of responsibility in the trial of cases by the people's court? 1. In this case, Shen was fully responsible for the accident. Can the town government exempt him from responsibility?

[Key Points of Judgment]

The responsibility determination of the Xiaoshan Traffic Police Brigade is based on the Road Traffic Safety Law of the People's Republic of China, the Implementation Regulations of the Road Traffic Safety Law of the People's Republic of China, and the Regulations on Traffic Accident Handling Procedures. Its determination of traffic accident responsibility has an administrative nature, while the People's Court is based on the General Principles of the Civil Law of the People's Republic of China and relevant judicial interpretations. According to Article 4 of the "Notice on Issues Related to Road Traffic Accident Cases" jointly issued by the Supreme People's Court and the Ministry of Public Security (i.e. Fa Fa [1992] No. 39), "If the people's court considers that the responsibility determination made by the public security organs is indeed inappropriate during the trial of a traffic accident, it shall not be accepted, and the facts determined by the people's court shall be used as the basis for the final decision So the accident liability determination letter can only be used as evidence in civil cases tried by the people's court.

The court found out that the location of the incident was a village level road built by the town government. There was a crack on the south side of the road, and the difference between the south and north sides of the crack was about 10 centimeters, which directly caused the electric vehicle driven by Shen to lose control of its brakes and cause the accident.

The court held that in this accident, the victim Shen drove without a license and did not wear a helmet. He neglected to observe the road conditions while driving, and the speed was too fast to lose control. These behaviors were the main reasons for the accident. The defendant town government, as the construction investor and actual manager of the village level highway, did not pay sufficient attention to the existence of cracks and their impact on driving safety, and should bear secondary responsibility for the accident.

After mediation by the court, the defendant town government compensated 30% of the accident losses, which is RMB 40000.