论文部分内容阅读
案例:2006年5月26日,委托人邵某乘坐南通汽运公司的大客车,从无锡前往如皋。同日12时20分左右为避让一辆小汽车,客车翻入沟渠,致包括委托人邵某在内的大客车乘员等多人受伤。事后,委托人被送往医院治疗。经诊断,委托人邵某左肱骨外科颈骨折(粉碎性),失血性休克,多处软组织挫伤。同年6月17日,交警队对事故责任作出认定:客车司机负主要责任;小汽车司机负次要责任;委托人邵某等大客车乘员没有与事故有关的过错行为。委托人的伤情后经鉴定为十级伤残。委托人治疗终结后找到罗阳律师,要求起诉获得赔偿。在了解到小汽车司机没有经济赔偿能力的情况下,罗阳律师建议委托人直接起诉南通汽运公司,将案由定为公路运输合同纠纷。随后,委托人向南通汽运公司提起诉讼,索赔20万余元(含误工损失13万元)。该案经一审法院两次开庭后判决被告赔偿委托人各项损失8万余元。对委托人担忧的已获工伤保险赔偿(委托人为北京某大型国企员工)后是否还能获得侵权第三方赔偿的问题,罗阳律师收集相关资料就此向法庭充分陈述了意见。法庭采纳了律师“受害人获工伤保险赔付不能免除第三人的侵权责任、本案是合同纠纷不牵涉侵权”的代理意见,但对残疾赔偿金的计算依据和误工损失的确定却不能让人信服。尽管一审判决存在适用法律问题,但委托人因故不愿上诉。判决生效后,南通汽运公司将赔偿款项全额给付委托人。
Case: On May 26, 2006, the client Shaomou took a bus from Nantong Transportation to Rugao from Wuxi. On the same day around 12:20 in order to avoid a car, the bus turned into ditches, including the client Shao, including passengers and many others were injured. Afterwards, the client was taken to the hospital for treatment. After diagnosis, the client Shao left surgical fracture of the neck (comminuted), hemorrhagic shock, multiple soft tissue contusion. June 17 the same year, the traffic police team to determine the responsibility of the accident: bus driver negative main responsibility; car driver negatively responsible; client Shao Mou and other bus occupants did not fault-related acts of misconduct. After the client’s injury was identified as ten disabled. Lawyer Luo Yang found the end of the treatment, the prosecution to obtain compensation. Knowing that the driver of a car does not have the ability to pay for the economy, Lawyer Luo Yang suggests that the principal directly sue Nantong Transportation Company for setting the case as a road transport contract dispute. Subsequently, the client filed a lawsuit to Nantong Transportation Company, claiming more than 200,000 yuan (including a loss of 130,000 yuan for loss of labor). The case was heard twice after the court of first instance sentenced the defendant to compensate the principal for losses of more than 80,000 yuan. Concerned about the client has been injured in industrial injury insurance (the principal is a Beijing-based large state-owned employees) is also able to obtain third-party compensation for infringement, Lawyer Luo Yang collected relevant information to the court fully stated their views. The court adopted a lawyer “victims get compensation for industrial injury insurance can not be exempt from tort liability of a third party, the case is the contractual dispute does not involve infringement,” the views of the agency, but the calculation of disability compensation basis and the loss of working time losses can not make People convinced. Although there are applicable legal issues in the first instance judgment, the principal refuses to appeal for some reason. After the entry into force of the judgment, Nantong Transportation Company will pay the principal in full amount of compensation.