Supreme Court Clarifies Liability Rules for "Door Opening" and Other Traffic Accidents

The "Interpretation (II) of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in Hearing Cases of Compensation for Damages Arising from Road Traffic Accidents," which will take effect on June 30, 2026, consists of 12 articles and provides rules regarding liable parties, liability determination, calculation of compensation, and litigation procedures in road traffic accident damage compensation cases. With respect to scenarios such as vehicle leasing or borrowing, Interpretation (II) clarifies that the user of the motor vehicle shall bear full tort liability. Where the owner or manager is at fault, they shall jointly assume liability with the user within the scope of their fault, provided that the total amount actually paid by all liable parties shall not exceed the total compensation amount to which the victim is entitled. Regarding "door-opening accidents"—where a passenger opens a vehicle door causing injury to others—Interpretation (II) stipulates that the victim may assert that such conduct constitutes liability on the part of "the motor vehicle party" and claim compensation from the insurer within the limits of compulsory motor vehicle liability insurance (compulsory insurance) and commercial third-party liability insurance. Any shortfall shall be borne by the passenger and the driver in accordance with the law. In cases of "gratuitous ride-sharing" (i.e., free rides), Interpretation (II) requires courts to comprehensively consider factors such as the traffic management authority’s liability determination, the cause of the accident, and the specific conduct of the vehicle user to determine whether the user acted intentionally or with gross negligence, thereby deciding whether to reduce their compensation liability. On the scope of compensation, Interpretation (II) provides that victims who are beyond the statutory retirement age but can prove actual loss of income due to the accident shall be entitled to claim compensation for lost earnings. If a victim dies during litigation from causes unrelated to the accident after having been disabled by it, disability compensation shall still be calculated according to standardized criteria. Additionally, the method for calculating dependents’ living expenses in cases involving multiple dependents is tilted in favor of the victim. Regarding litigation procedures, Interpretation (II) clarifies that victims may not seek compensation from tortfeasors for medical expenses already covered by basic medical insurance or work-related injury insurance, or for emergency treatment and funeral expenses advanced by the Road Traffic Accident Social Assistance Fund, to prevent double recovery. Subrogation claims filed by relevant institutions may be consolidated into the same case for joint adjudication. Furthermore, disputes over liability arising from non-motorized vehicle traffic accidents are also brought under corresponding procedural regulations.