Woman’s Cycling Fall Prompts “No Contact” Liability Debate in China: Official Explanation Defends Ruling

CNBC AI News, August 13th – A recent “no-contact” traffic incident in Hubei province, China, has reignited debate over liability in accidents where vehicles don’t physically collide. The incident, and others like it, prompt discussions about the nuances of responsibility, leading authorities to offer clarifications.

The case involves a driver, identified online as “YangYang,” who claims he was deemed partially responsible after a nearby scooter rider fell while driving in the opposite direction. No collision occurred between the car and the scooter.

According to “YangYang’s” dashcam footage, the scooter driver was operating the vehicle with one hand while using a mobile phone. The scooter then abruptly veered and crashed onto the roadside gravel, several meters away from the approaching car.

Official documentation confirms the scooter driver was found primarily responsible for violating Article 72(5) of the Road Traffic Safety Law Implementation Regulations, which prohibits operating a bicycle, tricycle, electric bicycle, or disabled person’s motorized wheelchair with hands off the handlebars or while holding objects. This determination was based on Article 60(2) of the Road Traffic Accident Handling Procedures.

However, “YangYang” was also assigned secondary responsibility, based on Article 22 of the Road Traffic Safety Law, stating that motor vehicle drivers should abide by traffic laws and regulations and drive safely and responsibly. The authorities again cited Article 60(2) of the Road Traffic Accident Handling Procedures.

Legal experts suggest that driving on a narrow road with obstructions, like a parked tricycle, requires heightened awareness and a duty of care.

“YangYang” stated that traffic police cited his failure to yield as the reason for his partial responsibility. He has filed for reconsideration, awaiting a response within 30 working days, and is unsure of the exact amount he might have to pay in damages.

Wu Zhenhua, a lawyer at Beijing Ye Di Law Firm, suggests the police determined that the driver’s failure to yield was indirectly linked to the scooter driver’s fall, aligning with the principle of responsibility in “no-contact” accidents. Wu recommends gathering supplementary evidence, such as witness statements, to challenge the claim of failing to yield.

This raises a crucial question: Can a party be liable for a traffic accident even without direct physical contact? Judges clarify that a “traffic accident” is any event on the road that causes injury, death, or property damage due to fault or accident. “No-contact” accidents are a distinct form where no physical collision occurs.

Critically, liability in traffic accidents hinges less on physical contact and more on the causal relationship between a party’s actions and the resulting damages. The primary consideration is whether a person’s negligence contributed to the incident.