Ordinary case details
On March 11, 2015, Wang XX, an employee of a central state-owned enterprise, was operating a mechanical parking space in the community to retrieve a car. Without noticing that someone was inside the adjacent ××× parking space, he directly swiped his card to start lifting the parking space, causing the parking space where the ××× vehicle was parked to start sinking and resulting in damage to the ××× vehicle. After Huatai Property Insurance Beijing Branch compensated for the related vehicle losses, the insurer filed a subrogation lawsuit against Wang XX, claiming that Wang XX failed to exercise due care and infringed upon others' civil rights. After losing the first and second instances, Wang XX filed for retrial.
Making a mountain out of a molehill for retrial reasons
This was originally an ordinary civil and commercial case, but interestingly, the retrial applicant repeatedly escalated the issue, even resorting to moral coercion and threatening the judge. Some of the reasons for retrial are as follows:
- The people-centered principle of adjudication is to let the public experience social fairness and justice in every judicial case. If online media pay attention to this case, it might damage the image of the Party and the people's courts, erode public confidence in judicial reform, and many similar accidents involving Huatai Company's small insured households. Such handling could trigger social stability issues.
- Asecond-instance appeal is the last line of defense for maintaining social fairness and justice. This retrial application is the last hope through normal channels and should draw the attention of judges.
- As a demobilized soldier educated by the Party during the New Year, a cadre in central government organs, a staff member of local Party committees and governments, and now a central enterprise employee nearing retirement, personally experiencing the entire process of litigation is truly an opportunity to understand society and judicial practice. Ihave the responsibility to continue striving for comprehensive rule of law and maintaining social harmony and justice.
Judgment Verse Appreciation:
The retrial ruling by the judges of the Beijing High Court fully demonstrated the exceptional professionalism and literary skills of the capital's judges:
Wang XX failed to fulfill his duty of care and infringed upon others' civil rights and should bear tort liability (the document states that when people's courts hear civil cases, they must base their judgments on facts and the law; making other arguments is useless!) ） 。
This court has noted that Wang XX recounted that as a demobilized soldier educated by the Party for many years, a cadre of central government organs, a staff member of local party committees and governments, and now a central enterprise employee nearing retirement, he hopes that through his personal experience in handling this case, he can contribute to the development of the national legal system and fairness and justice. His awareness of participation and spirit of the rule of law are especially commendable (those who speak out are the people who gossip). Truly, these words are true; the trick is unknown to the name).
Ialso hope that through the trial process and outcomes of the case, they will deepen their understanding of judicial work (different fields are like mountains apart; you might not have understood this well enough!). ), working together with the courts to create a harmonious judicial environment (if you keep stirring things up, you'll just destroy a harmonious society).
Brief Analysis:
In a dirty society, if everyone talks about rules instead of morality, it will eventually become a human, normal society, and morality will naturally return.
In a clean society, if everyone disregards rules but talks about morality and nobility, and talks about moral norms and selflessness every day, then society will eventually degenerate into a filthy society full of hypocrites.
Ididn't have time to verify whether the above passage was actually said by Mr. Hu Shi, but it roughly corresponds to this principle.
In fact, more than three years have passed since the case was concluded, and there have been no major incidents involving Huatai Insurance's small policyholders that could affect social stability.
"Appendix: (2018) Jing Min Shen No. 418 Civil Ruling"
Retrial applicant (defendant in first instance, appellant in second instance): Wang Jincheng, male, born November 26, 1961, Han ethnicity, residing in Haidian District, Beijing.
Respondent (plaintiff in the first instance, appellee in the second instance): Huatai Property Insurance Co., Ltd. Beijing Branch, located at No. 125 Deshengmenwai Street, Xicheng District, Beijing, Room 101B, 401B-601B. Person in charge: Guan Yaoyong, General Manager. Authorized litigation agent: Guan Xu, female, staff member of the company. Respondent (Defendant in the First Instance): Beijing Magang Intelligent Parking Management Co., Ltd., Addressed at B301, No. 256 Yunjing East Road, Tongzhou District, Beijing. Legal representative: Zhou Zhuang, General Manager. Respondent (Defendant in First Instance): Beijing Yuyou Property Management Co., Ltd., Address: Room 5-505, Building 5, Yard 16, Meiliyuan Middle Road, Haidian District, Beijing. Legal representative: Liu Deming, General Manager. Retrial applicant Wang Jincheng is dissatisfied with the civil judgment No. 90 (2017) Jing 04 Min Zhong 90 of the Beijing Fourth Intermediate People's Court of Beijing Municipal People's Court, dissatisfied with the insurer subrogation right dispute with respondents Huatai Property Insurance Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Huatai Company), Beijing Magang Intelligent Parking Management Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Magang Company), and Beijing Yuyou Property Management Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Yuyou Company). This court lawfully formed a collegial panel to conduct the review, which has now concluded. Wang Jincheng applied for retrial, stating that (1) the evidence provided by Huatai Company's professional agents and Hao Han's lawyer was carefully prepared over nearly two years. The legal document "Claim Assignment Agreement" provided by Huatai Company was signed by Hao Han on March 16 to receive compensation, indicating receipt of the payment and no objections. In the motor vehicle claim transfer agreement, only one document bears Hao Han's signature and date. Hao Han is a lawyer, and the date of receipt is a legal document; otherwise, the respondent has issued false evidence. (2) Online investigation revealed that Hao Han was a judge at the former Railway Transport Court, and his partner, Shanbang Law Firm, is a partner of Huatai Company. According to the policies and regulations of the China Insurance Association and the Insurance Regulatory Commission, ordinary insured individuals experiencing similar vehicle damage cannot follow the procedures. Evidence shows that Hao Han received 99,985 yuan in compensation on March 16, so it's easy to understand what income he received on July 3 was 100205 yuan. (3) In the first-instance judgment, the judge avoided the facts reflected in the evidence, and Huatai Company did not provide any explanatory evidence for specific circumstances, which led to the appeal. The second trial had only one judge and no new evidence to explain this obvious issue; the causal reasoning was inaccurate and illogical, and that's how the barbarian was born. (4) The principle of people-centered adjudication is to let the public experience social fairness and justice in every judicial case. If online media focus on this case, it might damage the image of the Party and the people's courts, erode public confidence in judicial reform, and many similar accidents involving Huatai Company's small insured households. Such handling could trigger social stability issues. (5) Second-instance appeals are the last line of defense in safeguarding social fairness and justice. This retrial application is the last hope through normal channels and should draw the attention of judges. As a demobilized soldier educated by the Party for the New Year, a cadre in central government organs, a local Party committee and government staff, and now a central enterprise employee nearing retirement, personally experiencing the entire process of litigation is truly an opportunity to understand society and judicial practice. Ihave the responsibility to continue striving for comprehensive rule of law and maintaining social harmony and justice. Huatai Company submitted an opinion stating that we have no objections to the fact-finding and application of law involving us in the first and second instance courts, and requested your court to review the applicant's retrial application according to law. After review, this court finds that regarding the procedural issue of Huatai Company's claims raised by Wang Jincheng, the insured Hao Han stated in the motor vehicle claim transfer that he received 99,985 yuan in compensation from Huatai Company on March 16, 2015. Since Huatai Company's actual payment date was July 3, 2015, the payment date issued by Hao Han was inaccurate, and the insurance compensation Hao Han actually received was 100205 yuan, not just the 99,985 yuan for vehicle damage. Wang Jincheng concluded that Huatai Company paid compensation first and then assessed the damages based solely on the motor vehicle claim transfer document, but the evidence was insufficient. The first and second instance courts, based on evidence such as the loss assessment form and payment vouchers provided by Huatai Company, did not support Wang Jincheng's claims that Huatai Company's claims were illegal or irregular, which was not improper. Regarding Hao Han's impact on the fairness of the first and second instance trials of this case. Upon investigation, there is no record of Hao Han's appointment in the "Beijing Court Team Management System," which was completed and put into use in 2005. Even if the third party Hao Han did serve at the former Beijing Railway Transport Intermediate Court or the Beijing Railway Transport Court, his departure date should have been at least before 2005. Moreover, Hao Han was not a party to this case or another participant in the litigation, and there is no evidence that Hao Han used his previous position to influence the trial. Judging from the actual handling of the legal relationship involving subrogation, the first and second instance judgments did not deviate from the basic framework of insurance claims and insurance subrogation legal relationships. Wang Jincheng failed to exercise his duty of care and infringed upon others' civil rights and should bear tort liability. This court noted that Wang Jincheng recounted that as a demobilized soldier educated and trained by the Party for many years, a cadre of a central government organ, a staff member of a local party committee and government, and a central enterprise employee nearing retirement, he hopes that through his personal experience in handling this case, he can contribute to promoting the construction of the national legal system and fairness and justice. His sense of participation and spirit of the rule of law are especially commendable. It is also hoped that through the trial process and outcomes, he will deepen his understanding of judicial work and work with the court to create a harmonious judicial environment. According to Article 204, Paragraph 1 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China and Article 395, Paragraph 2 of the Supreme People's Court's Interpretation on the Application of, the ruling is as follows: Wang Jincheng's application for retrial is rejected.
Presiding Judge: Xu Dong; Judge: Fu Zhongliang; Judge: Peng Hongyun; March 28, 2018; Clerk Zhang Jingong