一、案情介绍

原、被告系邻居朋友关系。2006年3月26日，原告张某乘坐被告张某驾驶的浙J-3B059丰田巡洋舰越野车，从台州出发前往上海，该车途经上三高速公路往上虞方向64公里处碰撞护栏后翻车，造成原告张某颅脑、肝脏、脾脏等多处重要器官严重受伤的恶劣交通事故，《今日早报》以“电子狗相伴得意忘形，巡洋舰飞车栽了跟斗”的标题对此次事故进行了相关报道。2006年5月10日，高速公路交警总队绍兴支队作出浙公高绍三认（2006）第30008号事故认定书认定，确定被告张某负本次事故全部责任，原告张某不负事故责任。受伤后，原告张某立即被送往新昌人民医院抢救治疗，因病情严重，原告张某先后被转入浙江第一人民医院，上海东方肝胆外科医院，上海长海医院，台州市中心医院进行治疗，至2006年12月29日花去医药费总共541411.68元。期间被告仅支付了200000元医疗费用。现原告伤势虽然逐步稳定，但生活仍不能自理，需要进行再次手术治疗。因原告家庭经济困难，无力再支付巨额的医疗费用，故原告暂不能实施手术治疗，后经原告多次催讨要求被告及时支付其他相关费用，但被告均予以拒绝。为此原告就已经发生的医药费用，于2006年12月29日向法院起诉，其它损失等伤势稳定后再次起诉。

二、办案经过

2006年12月26日，本案经办律师接待了原告张某的家属，详细了解原被告关系、原被告出发去上海的原因、事故发生起因经过、过错责任、原告医治情况、原被告目前家庭经济状况等问题。当事人家属向律师提出三个要求：1、要求被告全额支付医药费用；2、对被告现有资产进行调查，如有条件可采取财产保全；3、由于经济困难希望尽快处理本案。经办律师分析本案案情后，给当事人家属四点答复意见：1、因原告支付巨额药费后家庭比较困难，可向法院申请缓交诉讼费；2、要求被告全额支付药费比较困难，如起诉，被告势必提出对药费进行审核，按惯例药费总有或多或少剔除；3、本案具有特殊性即系好易同乘，原告获利，法院有可能考虑这方面因素；4、办案时间要考虑药费审核的速度。经办律师当日接受当事人家属委托，代理本案一审。经办律师并告知当事人家属，向其所在地街道、村委会出具收入困难证明。2006年12月27日经办律师根据当事人提供的信息，向台州市车辆管理所和路桥工商管理部门查询相关档案，发现被告有一辆价值二百万元豪华轿车和开办公司一家。2006年12月29日，此案正式向路桥区人民法院提起民事诉讼，该院因当事人经济困难，同意原告缓交2／3诉讼费。立案后，经办律师向本案主审法官提供关于因原告经济困难无力支付继续治疗费用的书面报告，希望及时审理本案。2007年1月上旬，法院向当事人送达传票，本案定于2007年2月7日开庭审理。2007年1月中旬，被告代理律师向法院申请要求对原告541411.68元药费进行审核。由于原告出院后一直在临海养伤，经办律师与对方律师协商后，关于本案药费审核双方同意放在临海司法鉴定所鉴定。后经办律师马上与原告家属取得联系，告知鉴定机构名称、地址、联系方式、鉴定人员等，要求家属及时带原告去鉴定机构陈述病情及医治情况；经办律师也与鉴定人员取得联系，告知开庭时间，希望尽快审核药费，鉴定人员表示了对原告的同情，并承诺不影响开庭时间。2007年2月6日，经过鉴定人员辛勤工作，本案药费审核结论为：原告医药费为541411.68元，其中不合理用药为4384.75元。2007年2月7日上午8时50分，本案准时在路桥法院开庭审理。

三、争议焦点

经过法庭调查，本案争议焦点为1、本案的性质是什么？是被告特地帮忙送原告去上海，帮工关系呢？还是原告搭被告便车，好意同乘呢？2、本案过错责任如何？是否如被告陈述的帮工关系，被告仅承担部分责任？交警部门的事故认定能否作为本案过错责任认定依据？此外原告是否存在过错如有无系安全带？针对第一个焦点，被告方申请三位证人出庭证明被告是特地帮忙开车送原告去上海办事的，经办律师对这三位证人分别进行详细询问，三位证人证言均是传言证词，而且证词间有多处矛盾，法院对证人证言没有采信。故本案性质为好意同乘。针对第二个焦点，被告认为交警部门关于事故责任认定不准确，认为原告在事故发生时被甩出车外，从而得出原告在事故发生前没有系安全带，违反安全法规规定，原告应承担相应责任；经办律师提出反驳意见认为：1、被告没有任何证据证明原告当时没有系安全带，2、原告被甩出车外，不能就认定原告没有系安全带，3、原告当时坐在副驾驶室，属于危险系数最高位置。庭审后，本案主审法官还电话咨询了交警部门，同意经办律师上述观点。

四、法院判决结果

2007年3月2日法院判决如下：被告驾驶车辆途经高速公路碰撞护栏后翻车，致原告受伤的交通事故，及被告负本次事故的全部责任，事实清楚，故原告的损失依法应由被告承担民事责任。原告诉请的赔偿项目中，医疗费应凭据计付并剔除法医审查的不合理部分计4384.75元。被告辩称原、被告间系帮工关系、及原告乘坐车辆未系安全带，被告仅承担部分赔偿责任，上述辩称均缺乏事实和法律依据，法院不予采纳。遂判决被告十日内支付原告医疗费506954.93元（含被告已支付的200000元）。被告向台州中院提起上诉,终审维持原判.

五、办案心得

经办律师承办过大量交通事故人身损害赔偿案件，但本案具有特殊性、新颖性，尚属首例。本案系好意同乘，又因好意施惠方过错引起的交通事故。关于好意同乘，目前我国法律没有明确规定，但司法实践通说认为：对人的生命健康权的注意义务，不能因好意施惠而为减轻。虽然本案一审作出有利于原告的判决，但本案给经办律师启示主要有两点：1、律师办案方面，应当从细节入手，处处为当事人着想，密切关注案件进程，多与办案机关和相关部门联系、沟通，及时与当事人联系告知案件进展，本案从立案到审结仅用了两个多月，是经办律师所办过最快的交通事故案件，当事人也相当满意。2、交通安全方面，目前我市汽车拥有量相当高，但交通事故案件居高不下，朋友间搭便车情况相当普遍，好意施惠人不知道自身责任将随之加重，安全注意方面往往被忽视。否则像本案一样朋友变仇人，原告失去健康的身体，被告要承担巨额的经济赔偿。面对这种情况，朋友搭乘很难拒绝，故经办律师建议，要么开车人提高自身注意义务，避免事故发生；要么大家一起坐公共巴士，避免加重自身义务。

1、 Case Introduction

The plaintiff and defendant are neighbors and friends. On March 26, 2006, the plaintiff Zhang took a Zhejiang J-3B059 Toyota Cruiser off-road vehicle driven by the defendant Zhang from Taizhou to Shanghai. The vehicle collided with a guardrail 64 kilometers in the direction of Shangyu on the Shangsan Expressway and overturned, causing severe injuries to the plaintiff Zhang's brain, liver, spleen and other important organs, The Today Morning Post reported on the accident under the headline 'Electronic Dog Accompanying Self indulgence, Cruiser Crashing'. On May 10, 2006, the Shaoxing Branch of the Highway Traffic Police Corps issued the Zhejiang Public Gao Shao San Ren (2006) No. 30008 accident determination letter, which determined that the defendant Zhang was fully responsible for the accident and the plaintiff Zhang was not responsible for the accident. After being injured, plaintiff Zhang was immediately sent to Xinchang People's Hospital for emergency treatment. Due to his serious condition, plaintiff Zhang was transferred to Zhejiang First People's Hospital, Shanghai Dongfang Hepatobiliary Surgery Hospital, Shanghai Changhai Hospital, and Taizhou Central Hospital for treatment. As of December 29, 2006, he spent a total of 541411.68 yuan on medical expenses. During this period, the defendant only paid 200000 yuan in medical expenses. Although the plaintiff's injuries have gradually stabilized, they are still unable to take care of themselves and require further surgical treatment. Due to the economic difficulties of the plaintiff's family, they were unable to pay a huge amount of medical expenses, so the plaintiff was temporarily unable to undergo surgical treatment. Later, the plaintiff repeatedly urged the defendant to pay other related expenses in a timely manner, but the defendant refused. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit with the court on December 29, 2006 regarding the medical expenses that had already been incurred. After other losses and injuries stabilized, the plaintiff filed another lawsuit.

2、 Case handling process

On December 26, 2006, the handling lawyer of this case received the family of the plaintiff Zhang, and had a detailed understanding of the relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant, the reasons for the plaintiff's departure to Shanghai, the cause and process of the accident, fault liability, the plaintiff's medical treatment, and the current family economic situation of the plaintiff and the defendant. The family members of the parties have made three demands to the lawyer: 1. Require the defendant to fully pay the medical expenses; 2. Conduct an investigation into the defendant's existing assets, and if conditions permit, take property preservation measures; 3. Due to economic difficulties, we hope to resolve this case as soon as possible. After analyzing the circumstances of this case, the handling lawyer gave four response opinions to the family members of the parties: 1. Due to the difficulties faced by the plaintiff's family after paying a huge amount of medical fees, they can apply to the court for a delay in payment of litigation fees; 2. It is difficult to require the defendant to pay the full amount of the drug fee. If a lawsuit is filed, the defendant will inevitably propose to review the drug fee, and according to convention, the drug fee will always be more or less excluded; 3. The particularity of this case is that it is easy to ride together, and the plaintiff benefits. The court may consider this factor; 4. The handling time should consider the speed of drug fee review. The handling lawyer accepted the commission of the client's family on the same day and represented the first instance of this case. The handling lawyer shall inform the family members of the parties and provide proof of income difficulties to the street or village committee where they are located. On December 27, 2006, the handling lawyer, based on the information provided by the parties, inquired about relevant files with the Taizhou Vehicle Management Office and the Road and Bridge Industry and Commerce Administration Department, and found that the defendant had a luxury sedan worth 2 million yuan and a start-up company. On December 29, 2006, this case officially filed a civil lawsuit with the People's Court of Luqiao District. Due to the economic difficulties of the parties involved, the court agreed to postpone the plaintiff's payment of 2/3 of the litigation fees. After filing the case, the handling lawyer provided a written report to the presiding judge regarding the plaintiff's inability to pay for continued treatment due to financial difficulties, hoping to hear the case in a timely manner. In early January 2007, the court served a summons on the parties, and the case was scheduled to be heard on February 7, 2007. In mid January 2007, the defendant's lawyer applied to the court to review the plaintiff's drug fee of 541411.68 yuan. Due to the plaintiff's continuous recuperation in Linhai after discharge, after consultation between the handling lawyer and the opposing lawyer, both parties agreed to place the drug fee review in Linhai Judicial Appraisal Institute for appraisal. The handling lawyer immediately contacted the plaintiff's family members, informed them of the name, address, contact information, appraisers, etc. of the appraisal institution, and requested that the family members promptly take the plaintiff to the appraisal institution to state their condition and medical treatment; The handling lawyer also contacted the appraisers and informed them of the trial time, hoping to review the drug fees as soon as possible. The appraisers expressed sympathy for the plaintiff and promised not to affect the trial time. On February 6, 2007, after the diligent work of the appraisers, the conclusion of the drug fee review in this case was: the plaintiff's medical fee was 541411.68 yuan, of which the unreasonable use of drugs was 4384.75 yuan. At 8:50 am on February 7, 2007, the case was promptly heard at the Road and Bridge Court.

3、 Focus of controversy

After a court investigation, the focus of the dispute in this case is 1. What is the nature of this case? Is it the defendant who specifically helped to send the plaintiff to Shanghai, and what about the labor relationship? Or did the plaintiff take the defendant's ride with good intentions? 2. What is the fault liability in this case? Is the defendant only partially responsible for the helper relationship as stated by the defendant? Can the accident determination by the traffic police department serve as the basis for determining fault liability in this case? In addition, is there any fault with the plaintiff, such as wearing a seat belt? In response to the first focus, the defendant applied for three witnesses to appear in court to prove that the defendant specifically helped drive the plaintiff to Shanghai for work. The handling lawyer conducted detailed inquiries on each of these three witnesses. All three witnesses' testimony was hearsay testimony, and there were multiple contradictions between their testimonies. The court did not accept the witness's testimony. Therefore, the nature of this case is to use good intentions together. Regarding the second focus, the defendant believes that the traffic police department's determination of accident liability is inaccurate, and believes that the plaintiff was thrown out of the car during the accident, resulting in the plaintiff not wearing a seat belt before the accident and violating safety regulations. The plaintiff should bear corresponding responsibility; The handling lawyer raised a rebuttal that: 1. The defendant did not have any evidence to prove that the plaintiff was not wearing a seat belt at the time. 2. The plaintiff was thrown out of the car, so it cannot be considered that the plaintiff was not wearing a seat belt. 3. The plaintiff was sitting in the passenger compartment at the time, which is the highest risk position. After the trial, the presiding judge in this case also consulted the traffic police department by phone and agreed with the handling lawyer's above viewpoint.

4、 Court judgment result

On March 2, 2007, the court ruled as follows: The defendant's vehicle overturned after colliding with a guardrail on a highway, causing the plaintiff to be injured in a traffic accident, and the defendant bears full responsibility for this accident. The facts are clear, so the plaintiff's losses should be borne by the defendant in accordance with the law. In the compensation item originally informed, medical expenses should be calculated and paid based on evidence, and the unreasonable part reviewed by the forensic examination should be deducted, totaling 4384.75 yuan. The defendant argued that there was a helper relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant, and that the plaintiff did not wear a seat belt in the vehicle. The defendant only bears partial compensation responsibility, and the above arguments lack factual and legal basis, and the court will not accept them. Therefore, the defendant was sentenced to pay the plaintiff medical expenses of 506954.93 yuan (including the 200000 yuan already paid by the defendant) within ten days. The defendant appealed to the Taizhou Intermediate People's Court and the final verdict was upheld

5、 Case handling experience

The handling lawyer has handled a large number of cases of personal injury compensation in traffic accidents, but this case is unique and novel, and is still the first case. This case is a traffic accident caused by the good intentions of both passengers and the benefactor's fault. Regarding the issue of good intentions for passengers, there is currently no clear provision in Chinese law, but judicial practice generally believes that the duty of care for the right to life and health of individuals cannot be alleviated by the use of good intentions. Although a judgment was made in favor of the plaintiff in the first instance of this case, the main inspiration for the handling lawyer in this case is twofold: 1. In handling the case, the lawyer should start from the details, always consider the parties, closely monitor the case progress, contact and communicate with the handling agency and relevant departments, and timely contact the parties to inform them of the progress of the case. The case only took more than two months from filing to completion, making it the fastest traffic accident case handled by the handling lawyer, The parties involved are also quite satisfied. 2. In terms of traffic safety, the current ownership of cars in our city is quite high, but traffic accident cases remain high, and free riding among friends is quite common. Beneficial benefactors do not know that their own responsibilities will increase, and safety precautions are often overlooked. Otherwise, like in this case, friends become enemies, and the plaintiff loses their healthy body, the defendant will have to bear a huge amount of economic compensation. Faced with this situation, it is difficult for friends to refuse a ride, so the handling lawyer suggests that either the driver should enhance their duty of care to avoid accidents; Either everyone can take public buses together to avoid increasing their own obligations.