Guiding Case No. 90 (Discussed and Passed by the Adjudication Committee of the Supreme People s Court Released on November 15, 2017)

Transcription

1 BEI Huifeng v. The Traffic Police Brigade of the Public Security Bureau of Haining Municipality, A Case of Administrative Penalties of Road Traffic Administration Guiding Case No. 90 (Discussed and Passed by the Adjudication Committee of the Supreme People s Court Released on November 15, 2017) CHINA GUIDING CASES PROJECT English Guiding Case (EGC90) January 22, 2018 Edition The citation of this translation of this Guiding Case is: 贝汇丰诉海宁市公安局交通警察大队道路交通管理行政处罚案 (BEI Huifeng v. The Traffic Police Brigade of the Public Security Bureau of Haining Municipality, A Case of Administrative Penalties of Road Traffic Administration), STANFORD LAW SCHOOL CHINA GUIDING CASES PROJECT, English Guiding Case (EGC90), Jan. 22, 2018 Edition, The original, Chinese version of this case is available at 最高人民法院网 ( See also 最高人民法院关于发布第 17 批指导性案例的通知 (The Supreme People s Court s Notice Concerning the Release of the 17 th Batch of Guiding Cases), issued on and effective as of Nov. 15, 2017, This document was primarily prepared by Dr. Mei Gechlik; it was finalized by Sean Webb, Dimitri Phillips, and Dr. Mei Gechlik. Minor editing, such as splitting long paragraphs, adding a few words included in square brackets, and boldfacing the headings, was done to make the piece more comprehensible to readers; all footnotes, unless otherwise noted, have been added by the China Guiding Cases Project. The following text is otherwise a direct translation of the original text released by the Supreme People s Court.

2 Keywords Administrative Administrative Penalty Yielding of Motor Vehicle Crossing a Crosswalk Main Points of the Adjudication Yielding to pedestrians is a basic requirement for civilized and safe driving. When a motor vehicle driver driving a vehicle to go over a crosswalk encounters a pedestrian crossing or stopping on the crosswalk, [the driver] should take the initiative to stop the vehicle and yield, unless the pedestrian clearly indicates that the motor vehicle [should] pass through [the crosswalk] first. Where a department of traffic administration of a public security organ imposes, in accordance with law, administrative penalties on a motor vehicle driver who does not yield to a pedestrian, a people s court should support [the penalties]. Related Legal Rule(s) Article 47 Paragraph 1 of the Road Traffic Safety Law of the People s Republic of China 1 Basic Facts of the Case Plaintiff BEI Huifeng claimed: when he 2 drove a car with [the license plate number] Zhe F1158J 3 (hereinafter referred to as the vehicle involved in the case ) to approach a crosswalk, the pedestrian [involved in the case] had already stopped on the crosswalk, and therefore, [the situation] was not [that of a pedestrian] crossing a crosswalk [as provided for in Article 47 Paragraph 1 of the Road Traffic Safety Law of the People s Republic of China]. Moreover, Xishan Road, which the vehicle involved in the case was passing through, is a main road of Haining Municipality. The traffic flow on the road section where the incident of the case occurred was heavy and there were no traffic lights at the intersection. If a motor vehicle had to stop and yield whenever there was a pedestrian on the crosswalk, this would, to a large extent, affect the traffic efficiency. Thus, while ensuring traffic safety, he was allowed to directly pass through the crosswalk without stopping the vehicle to yield. He should, therefore, not be penalized. The summary procedure administrative penalty decision (No ) of public security 1 中华人民共和国道路交通安全法 (Road Traffic Safety Law of the People s Republic of China), passed and issued on Oct. 28, 2003, effective as of May 1, 2004, amended two times, most recently on Apr. 22, 2011, effective as of May 1, 2011, 2 Masculine pronouns are used to refer to the plaintiff because the name 贝汇丰 ( BEI Huifeng ) is more likely to be a name for a male. 3 The identifier 浙 ( Zhe ) preceding the alphanumeric F1158J is the abbreviation of Zhejiang Province, where the license plate was likely registered.

3 traffic administration made by the Traffic Police Brigade of the Public Security Bureau of Haining Municipality (hereinafter referred to as the Haining Traffic Police Brigade ) was in violation of law. BEI Huifeng requested that [the court] revoke the administrative penalty decision made by the Haining Traffic Police Brigade. Defendant Haining Traffic Police Brigade defended its position, claiming: the pedestrian entered the crosswalk earlier than the vehicle involved in the case and driven by the plaintiff. In addition, [the pedestrian] was crossing [the crosswalk] and the vehicle involved in the case should have stopped to yield. If a pedestrian stops on a crosswalk, a motor vehicle driver may indicate that the pedestrian [should] quickly cross [the crosswalk], [and] if the pedestrian does not move, the motor vehicle can then pass through [the crosswalk]; otherwise, [the driver of the motor vehicle] violates the law. With respect to the administrative penalty decision imposed on BEI Huifeng, the facts were clear, the evidence was sufficient, the application of law was correct, and the procedures were legal. [The defendant] requested that [the court] decide to reject BEI Huifeng s litigation requests. The court handled the case and ascertained: 4 on January 31, 2015, BEI Huifeng drove the vehicle involved in the case along Xishan Road in Haining Municipality and encountered a pedestrian crossing a crosswalk; BEI Huifeng did not stop the vehicle to yield. The law enforcement traffic police of the Haining Traffic Police Brigade stopped the vehicle involved in the case on the spot, verified BEI Huifeng s identity as the driver, and applied summary procedures to orally inform BEI Huifeng of, inter alia, the basic facts of [his] illegal acts, the administrative penalties that they planned to impose on him, the basis [for those penalties], and the rights that he had. After hearing BEI Huifeng s statements and defense, [the police] prepared and served, on the spot, a written summary procedure administrative penalty decision of public security traffic administration, imposing on BEI Huifeng a fine of RMB 100 and recording three points [in the system to show his violation of traffic rules]. Unconvinced, BEI Huifeng, on February 13, 2015, applied to the People s Government of Haining Municipality for administrative reconsideration. On March 27, the People s Government of Haining Municipality issued a written administrative reconsideration decision, upholding the administrative penalty decision made by the Haining Traffic Police Brigade. After his receipt of the written administrative reconsideration decision, BEI Huifeng, on April 14, 2015, appealed to the People s Court of Haining Municipality[, Zhejiang Province]. Results of the Adjudication On June 11, 2015, the People s Court of Haining Municipality, Zhejiang Province, rendered the (2015) Jia Hai Xing Chu Zi No. 6 Administrative Judgment: 5 [the court] rejects BEI 4 The original text does not specify which court is referred to here. It is likely meant to be the first-instance court of this case, namely, the People s Court of Haining Municipality, Zhejiang Province. 5 贝汇丰与海宁市公安局交通警察大队行政处罚一审行政判决书 (BEI Huifeng and the Traffic Police

4 Huifeng s litigation requests. After the judgment was pronounced, BEI Huifeng was unconvinced and appealed. On September 10, 2015, the Intermediate People s Court of Jiaxing Municipality, Zhejiang Province, rendered the (2015) Zhe Jiang Xing Zhong Zi No. 52 Administrative Judgment: 6 [the court] rejects the appeal and upholds the original judgment. Reasons for the Adjudication In the effective judgment, the court opined: 7 first, a crosswalk is a lane on a road that is specifically for pedestrians to cross and is a line of protection set by law for pedestrians crossing the road. At road intersections where traffic lights are not provided, pedestrians have the right to cross the crosswalks first. As a fast means of transportation, motor vehicles running on roads are highly dangerous and in strong positions as compared with pedestrians. Therefore, certain rights [of the drivers of] motor vehicles running on roads must be restricted in order to protect pedestrians. In addition, the standards for determining whether a pedestrian is crossing a crosswalk should be based on a series of consecutive actions of the pedestrian over a specific period of time, rather than on the pedestrian s specific action at a particular point in time, especially if the specific action is not freely taken by the pedestrian in a free state [of mind], but is involuntarily taken by [the pedestrian] because of external, forceful reasons. At the time of the incident of this case, the pedestrian had walked at a faster pace to the crosswalk line and had approached at a faster speed the central location of the intersection where the incident of the case occurred. When [the pedestrian] saw BEI Huifeng drive the vehicle involved in the case toward him, the pedestrian slowed down to confirm whether the vehicle involved in the case would stop, but [the pedestrian] did not stop walking. When [the pedestrian] saw that the vehicle involved in the case did not decelerate significantly and did not [show] any tendency towards stopping, [the pedestrian] then, for his 8 own safety, had no choice but to stop. If, at this time, the vehicle involved in the case had decelerated significantly and stopped, the pedestrian would, for sure, have crossed the intersection continuously and without any stop. It Brigade of the Public Security Bureau of Haining Municipality, The First-Instance Administrative Judgment of an Administrative Penalty Case) ( 2015 ) 嘉海行初字第 6 号行政判决 ((2015) Jia Hai Xing Chu Zi No. 6 Administrative Judgment), rendered by the People s Court of Haining Municipality, Zhejiang Province, on June 11, 2015, full text available on the Stanford Law School China Guiding Cases Project s website, at 6 贝汇丰与海宁市公安局交通警察大队行政处罚二审行政判决书 (BEI Huifeng and the Traffic Police Brigade of the Public Security Bureau of Haining Municipality, The Second-Instance Administrative Judgment of an Administrative Penalty Case) (2015) 浙嘉行终字第 52 号行政判决 ((2015) Zhe Jiang Xing Zhong Zi No. 52 Administrative Judgment), rendered by the Intermediate People s Court of Jiaxing Municipality, Zhejiang Province, on Sept. 10, 2015, full text available on the Stanford Law School China Guiding Cases Project s website, at 7 The original text does not specify which court opined. Given the context, this should be the Intermediate People s Court of Jiaxing Municipality, Zhejiang Province. 8 The term his as used herein is, unless the context indicates otherwise, a gender-neutral term that may refer to her.

5 could be seen [from the above] that the series of consecutive actions taken by the pedestrian during the period of the incident of this case fully demonstrated that the pedestrian was crossing a crosswalk. Further, a motor vehicle and pedestrian s crossing of a road intersection where traffic lights are not set up is an interactive process. Neither party can accurately judge in advance whether the other party will stop to yield. Therefore, when a motor vehicle, which is in a stronger position [than a pedestrian], [is driven to] go over a crosswalk and encounters a pedestrian crossing [the crosswalk], [the driver] should take the initiative to stop the vehicle to yield and should not use his [relatively] strong position to force the pedestrian to stop and yield, unless the pedestrian clearly indicates that the motor vehicle [should] pass through [the crosswalk] first. This is both a clear provision of law and an inherent requirement of a modern civilized society to safeguard the safe crossing of roads by pedestrians (who are the weaker parties [in this kind of situation]), to reduce traffic accidents, and to safeguard the safety of life. In summary, when BEI Huifeng drove the motor vehicle to go over the crosswalk and encountered the pedestrian crossing [the crosswalk] but did not stop the vehicle to yield, he violated Article 47 of the Road Traffic Safety Law of the People s Republic of China. Based on the fact that BEI Huifeng violated the law, the Haining Traffic Police Brigade imposed, in accordance with legal procedures and within the statutory scope of penalties, corresponding administrative penalties [on BEI Huifeng]. The facts were clear, the procedures were legal, and the penalties were proper. (Adjudication personnel of the effective judgment: FAN Gangjian, ZHANG Bocheng, and ZHANG Hong)