摘要：Although myGong Xiang Legal Insightscolumn isn’t updated daily—or even that frequently—every update is packed with solid, practica

Although my Gong Xiang Legal Insights column isn’t updated daily—or even that frequently—every update is packed with solid, practical content. Many followers really enjoy this column, which is why I plan to dedicate more time in 2025 to producing legal education content. I'm also deeply grateful that quite a number of lawyers and judges follow my work and are willing to join me in learning and sharing the law.

Today's legal case once again comes from my own life. My approach has always been to draw lessons from real events around me, rather than picking random cases online to analyze. I prefer to connect legal knowledge to actual circumstances.

Recently, someone I know was injured while riding an e-bike across the street. He was struck by a motorcycle coming straight through. According to the traffic police, the rule that “vehicles turning must yield to those going straight” applied, so the e-bike rider—a 70-year-old man—was deemed primarily responsible, while the motorcyclist, a young man born in 1998, was assigned secondary responsibility. For the sake of writing this legal diary, I’ll refer to the e-bike rider as Zhang ZhengYi and the motorcyclist as Wang Chuankai.

Before the accident, Wang ChuanKai was riding straight ahead at a fairly high speed. As he approached the crosswalk, he neither slowed down as required nor paid sufficient attention to his surroundings. Zhang ZhengYi was crossing the street to enter his residential complex. According to Zhang’s account, he was riding slowly, checked for oncoming traffic on his left, saw the motorcycle far enough away, and then began to cross. But because Wang’s motorcycle was moving too fast, the two collided.

After the accident, Zhang was injured, while Wang suffered only minor scrapes. When the police arrived and inquired about their injuries, Zhang said he needed to go to the hospital since his left hip had been hit. Wang said his injuries were superficial and didn’t require treatment. In front of the police, he called PICC (the insurer) for a claim. However, since Wang only had mandatory liability insurance and no additional coverage, he would need to pay for his motorcycle repairs himself.

As for Zhang, his medical expenses, repair costs, and lost wages could be claimed from the insurer. But notably, Wang neither accompanied Zhang to the hospital nor showed any concern for the elderly man he had hit. Instead, at the scene—despite the police report only noting responsibility (primary vs. secondary)—Wang unilaterally demanded that Zhang cover 70% of his motorcycle’s repair costs, amounting to 2,100 yuan out of 3,000, simply because the police had deemed Zhang primarily responsible.

Here’s the problem: under the law, responsibility percentages like 60%, 70%, or 80% can only be formally determined in the Accident Liability Determination Report. What the police issued was merely a mediation record, not a legal apportionment of compensation ratios. Wang’s self-imposed “70% liability” had no legal basis. Moreover, even when the report does assign responsibility percentages, these only reflect the degree of fault—not the proportion of financial compensation owed.

According to Article 76 of the Road Traffic Safety Law:

When a traffic accident occurs between a motor vehicle and a non-motorized vehicle or pedestrian, if the non-motorized party or pedestrian has no fault, the motor vehicle bears full liability for compensation. If there is evidence of fault on the part of the non-motorized party or pedestrian, the motor vehicle’s liability may be appropriately reduced according to the degree of fault. If the motor vehicle has no fault, its liability shall not exceed 10%.

In plain terms: when a motor vehicle collides with a non-motorized one, the non-motorized party does not owe repair costs to the motor vehicle. Instead, the motor vehicle bears compensation liability.

Applied here: Zhang was riding an e-bike, which is classified as a non-motorized vehicle. Wang was on a lightweight motorcycle, which the police identified as a motor vehicle (specifically, an ordinary motorcycle). So, when it comes to compensation, “primary” and “secondary” responsibility only affect how Wang’s liability toward Zhang is apportioned. For instance, even if we accept Wang’s one-sided claim that Zhang was 70% responsible and Wang 30%, the implication would be that Wang must still pay 30% of Zhang’s total damages—medical bills, lost income, transport expenses, nutritional supplements, caregiving costs, and even compensation for emotional distress.

That’s all for today. In the next installment, I’ll continue discussing the follow-up to the accident between Wang Chuankai and Zhang Zhengyi.

来源：娜默1129