The traffic police have set full responsibility, shouldn't they compensate in full? In people's understanding, as long as the traffic management department divides the responsibility for the traffic accident, the compensation issue should be paid according to the responsibility. However, behind the seemingly direct determination of liability for "fixed compensation" lies a key difference between "traffic accident liability" and "civil compensation liability". The former is the division of responsibility by the traffic management department for the cause of the accident, while the latter requires a comprehensive judgment based on multiple factors such as the degree of fault of both parties, the actual scope of losses, and the causal relationship. Recently, the Gangnan District People's Court of Guigang City, Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region, tried a motor vehicle traffic accident liability dispute case that broke the inherent understanding of "full responsibility equals full compensation". Driving without a license and causing a hit and run accident, the victim's claim for compensation was delayed. One morning in March 2024, Li Xing (pseudonym) stepped onto an unlicensed three wheeled light motorcycle in a hurry. Not only did he fail to obtain a motor vehicle driver's license, but he also turned directly into the opposite lane of second-class highway in order to cut corners, totally unaware that the danger was approaching quietly. At this moment, Yu Yu (pseudonym) was driving an unlicensed electric vehicle along the motor lane for several hundred meters when he suddenly noticed a tricycle rushing towards him. He instinctively swerved to avoid, but the two cars were too close and the collision occurred instantly, causing both of them to fall to the ground. After the accident, Li Xing disregarded his own pain and Yu Yu's injuries, and watched as the deformed vehicle suddenly felt the urge to escape, hastily fleeing the scene. After the traffic police arrived at the scene, they retrieved surveillance footage, carefully investigated the traces of the accident, and, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Road Traffic Safety Law of the People's Republic of China and the Regulations on the Procedures for Handling Road Traffic Accidents, fully restored the full picture of the accident: Li Xing was responsible for driving an unlicensed vehicle, driving in the opposite direction, and escaping after the accident. Yu Yu's behavior has no direct causal relationship with the accident, and he is not responsible for this accident. On the day of the accident, Yu Yu was urgently taken to the hospital and diagnosed with a comminuted fracture of the right patella, accompanied by multiple soft tissue contusions and lacerations throughout the body. During his hospitalization, he spent a total of 14900 yuan on medical expenses. A month later, he returned home with an unreleased fixed steel plate and a cane to barely rest. I thought the responsibility determination was clear and the compensation issue could proceed smoothly, but when Yu Yu negotiated with Li Xing, the other party tried every means to shift the blame. Your electric vehicle is not registered and is still driving on the motor vehicle lane. Why should I compensate you in full? "After several negotiations, Li Xing either avoided or refused compensation for various reasons, causing Yu Yu's path to compensation to repeatedly hit a wall. Thinking about the need for a second surgery to remove the steel plate, as well as necessary expenses such as nursing fees and lost wages, Yu Yu was both anxious and angry. Helpless, Yu Yu sorted out medical expense receipts, medical records, accident liability determination letters and other evidence, and filed a lawsuit with the court, demanding that Li Xing compensate for various economic losses such as medical expenses, nursing expenses, and lost work expenses, totaling 61700 yuan. Court: Full liability for accident ≠ Full compensation. The focus of the dispute in this case is: In a traffic accident, the fleeing party is recognized by the traffic management department as "full liability for the accident". Should they bear full responsibility in civil compensation? After trial, the judge believes that the allocation of losses in this case needs to be comprehensively considered from both legal provisions and actual fault. From the perspective of legal basis and administrative responsibility definition, Article 92 (1) of the Implementation Regulations of the Road Traffic Safety Law of the People's Republic of China stipulates: "If a party escapes after a traffic accident occurs, the party who escapes shall bear full responsibility. However, if there is evidence to prove that the other party is also at fault, the responsibility can be reduced." In this case, Li Xing did not stop to dispose of the accident after it occurred, but instead drove away from the scene. His act of evading responsibility is not only a disregard for life and responsibility, but also a violation of the moral bottom line and a blatant violation of the legal red line. The traffic management department has determined that he bears "full responsibility for the accident" based on this, which is not only a severe warning and punishment for the escape behavior, but also a clear division of administrative responsibility for the traffic accident, which is based on law and reason. The judge also believes that administrative liability cannot be simply equated with civil liability for compensation. The core of administrative responsibility lies in punishing illegal behavior, with a focus on maintaining public transportation order. The foundation of civil tort compensation liability is the principle of fairness, which states that whoever is at fault bears the responsibility, and the degree of fault determines the severity of liability. This indicates that the division of civil compensation liability must return to the accident itself, clarify whether there is fault in the actions of both parties, and whether there is a direct causal relationship between fault and damage consequences. This is the rightful duty of legal fairness and justice, and also a practical guarantee for the legitimate rights and interests of both parties. The judge believes that from the root cause of the accident, on the one hand, Li Xing did not obtain a motor vehicle driver's license in accordance with the law, which constitutes a serious illegal situation of "driving without a license", and driving in the opposite direction directly violates the basic order of road traffic, which is the main reason for the accident. On the other hand, when driving a non motorized vehicle, Yu Yu did not comply with the basic rule that "non motorized vehicles should drive in the non motorized lane" and deviated from the exclusive lane at will, which objectively increased the risk of collision with motor vehicles and was a secondary cause of the accident. He also made mistakes himself. If solely due to Li Xing's escape behavior, Yu Yu's own violation and fault are ignored, and Li Xing is forced to bear all civil compensation responsibilities, it not only violates the basic principle of "matching fault and responsibility" in civil law, but also appears unfair to Li Xing. The law neither allows lawbreakers to evade their responsibilities, nor does it overlook the fault of one party due to their outstanding fault. It also does not allow the fair nature of responsibility allocation to be obscured by a "single illegal circumstance". Based on this, the court comprehensively considered the damage behavior, damage consequences, causal relationship between behavior and consequences, and subjective degree of fault of both parties, and finally ruled that Yu Yu should bear 30% of the compensation liability for his own losses, and Li Xing should bear 70% of the compensation liability for the main fault. In summary, the court ruled that Li Xing should compensate Yu Yu for economic losses of 16400 yuan and rejected Yu Yu's other claims. [Observation and Reflection] Responsibility should be matched with fault. Law is never simply about "punishing evil", nor is it a binary judgment of responsibility. Its core value lies in accurately balancing the rights and interests of all parties based on facts while severely punishing lawbreakers, so that each compensation liability corresponds precisely to the degree of fault of the perpetrator, neither condoning illegality nor imposing excessive punishment. The verdict of this case not only strongly condemns Li Xing's disregard for life and evasion of responsibility, but also clarifies that Yu Yu needs to bear the corresponding consequences for his own violations. It also conveys a clear judicial direction to society - every traffic participant should not only have respect for the law, strictly abide by traffic rules, and not cross the illegal red line. At the same time, the law always anchors the two core elements of "fact" and "fault" in the division of responsibility. It will not allow lawbreakers to escape responsibility for any reason, nor will it allow innocent individuals to bear additional responsibility for the actions of others, nor will it cover up the fair nature of responsibility division due to single illegal circumstances such as "escape". Fairness and justice are not only reflected in the punishment of illegal acts, but also in the precise identification of each fault and the practical protection of the rights and interests of each party. This is not only the embodiment of the principle of "matching responsibility with fault" in civil law, but also the due duty of the judiciary to safeguard social fairness and justice and maintain traffic order. (New Society)