The sidewalk at the entrance of the residential area was filled with shared-bikes. A pedestrian jaywalked for convenience and collided with a speeding electric bicycle. How should the liability for this traffic accident be determined? Should the shared-bike company be held accountable?

[Case Review]

Due to the shared-bikes occupying the sidewalk, Mr. Li saw the road blocked and jaywalked across the road for convenience. Mr. Zhou happened to be riding an electric bicycle at high speed towards the entrance of the residential area. Neither of them noticed each other, resulting in a traffic accident where Mr. Zhou fell from his bicycle and got injured, with the vehicle also damaged. The traffic police determined that Mr. Zhou, due to speeding and not paying attention to the road conditions, bore the primary responsibility for the accident, while Mr. Li and the shared-bike company bore secondary liability.

Mr. Zhou argued that Mr. Li¡¯s jaywalking and the shared-bike company¡¯s failure to properly place the bikes according to regulations obstructed Mr. Li¡¯s passage, which was also a significant factor contributing to the accident. He believed both parties should compensate him. Consequently, Mr. Zhou filed a lawsuit with the Shanghai Baoshan District People¡¯s Court, (Hereinafter referred to as the ¡°Baoshan District People¡¯s Court¡±), requesting that Mr. Li and the shared-bike company to bear corresponding compensation responsibilities for all his losses based on the proportion of their respective liabilities in the accident.

Mr. Li contended that Mr. Zhou bore the primary responsibility for the accident, and the shared-bike company¡¯s practice of densely placing numerous bikes at the entrance forced him to jaywalk cross the road, claiming he was without fault.

The shared-bike company argued that at the time, there was a one-person-wide passage left for pedestrians, and the parked bicycles did not obstruct pedestrian passage. They contended that there was no causal link between the placement of the bikes and Mr. Zhou¡¯s injuries, thus rejecting liability for compensation.

[Case Study]

After reviewing the case, the Baoshan District People¡¯s Court concluded that Mr. Zhou, riding a non-motorized vehicle at an excessive speed, was passing through a road without traffic signals and failed to yield to a pedestrian crossing the road, which played a significant role in the accident and constituted a serious degree of fault.

Mr. Li crossed the road without a crosswalk and without confirming safety, which played a minor role in the accident and constituted a lesser degree of fault.

Furthermore, based on the on-site investigation by traffic police, surveillance footage at the time of the incident, and statements from all parties, it was evident that the shared-bikes were densely and tightly arranged along the street edge. This clearly indicated that the operator recently deployed an excessive number of bikes, exceeding reasonable limits, which indeed affected normal pedestrian passage. The court determined that the shared-bike company should bear a certain degree of responsibility.

Accordingly, the Baoshan District People¡¯s Court ruled that Mr. Li should be responsible for 20% of Mr. Zhou¡¯s losses, the shared-bike company should bear 10%, with the remainder to be borne by Mr. Zhou himself.

Dissatisfied with the judgment, the shared-bike company filed an appeal, but the second-instance court upheld the original judgment.

Following the case was finalized, the People¡¯s Court issued judicial recommendations to address the operational deficiencies of the shared-bike company, recommending enhanced training and guidance for their operational staff and optimization of their deployment strategy wherever possible. After the judicial recommendations were issued, the shared-bike company responded positively. A recent on-site visit by the judge revealed that shared-bikes were no longer on the side of the road where the incident occurred; all bikes had been relocated to a wider sidewalk on the opposite side of the road, ensuring sufficient space for two-way pedestrian traffic.

I. Strengthening Platform Accountability Awareness and Weaving a Robust ¡°Safety Net¡± for Transportation

In recent years, the burgeoning shared-bike industry has significantly alleviated the transportation challenge of the ¡°last mile¡± in daily commuting, greatly facilitating the public's everyday travel. However, concurrently, the frequency of traffic accidents involving shared-bikes has been on the rise, necessitating heightened attention.

According to relevant regulations, all vehicle drivers, pedestrians, and entities or individuals associated with road traffic activities must comply with laws and regulations to ensure orderly, safe, and smooth traffic. As deeply involved participants in road traffic activities across every corner of the city, shared-bike management companies bear greater responsibility. They should exercise self-restraint, adhere to relevant regulations, and maintain a constant awareness of legal and safety considerations.

II. Clarifying the Responsibilities of Relevant Parties to Ensure the Protection of Legal Rights

In judicial practice, determining the causal relationship between the management of shared-bikes and the occurrence of traffic accidents can often be complex. Under such circumstances, a comprehensive assessment should be made based the investigation conclusions of the traffic police, surveillance footage at the time of the accident, on-site inspections, statements from operators of shared-bikes present at the scene, and detailed accounts from other witnesses in the vicinity regarding the specific circumstances at the time of the incident.

Meanwhile, after establishing causality, it is crucial to fully consider factors such as the degree of fault of each directly involved party in the accident, causality, and other relevant aspects. A comprehensive and objective assessment should be made regarding the roles played and the severity of fault of each party involved in the traffic incident. This not only encourages adherence to traffic regulations by all parties but also promotes a judicial philosophy that values fairness, safety, and evidence-based rulings, thus effectively safeguarding the legal rights of all involved.

III. Addressing Management Blind Spots and Tightening the ¡°Safety Valve¡± for Traffic Management

During the case proceedings, it was found that the shared-bike company indeed had issues with specific operational staff¡¯s non-compliance with procedures and unreasonable daily deployment quantities. Such problems were also found to have a certain level of commonality.

Therefore, following the case review, judicial recommendations were issued to the involved enterprises, recommending that they enhance staff training and optimize deployment rules among other efforts. The aim is to accurately meet user demands, consider overall supply, and use digital tools for more rational planning of bicycle turnover and deployment, thus reducing the risk of traffic accidents affecting the public.

Following the issuance of these judicial recommendations, the shared-bike company indicated that they would conduct road safety training, lectures, and examinations for operational staff through both online and offline methods. They also pledged to coordinate with relevant authorities in their jurisdiction to optimize deployment rules based on the actual site conditions, promptly clear and manage vehicles causing congestion or illegally parked, and arrange personnel to properly place scattered bikes found at residential area entrances into designated areas.

[Representative Comments]

 Zhang Zhi, a deputy to the Shanghai Municipal People¡¯s Congress, the deputy secretary of the Party Committee for educational work in Baoshan District, and director of the Shanghai Baoshan District Education Bureau.

The emergence of shared-bikes represents a maximization of resource utilization and aligns well with our country¡¯s ongoing push for green, low-carbon development. They have played a positive role in alleviating traffic congestion and protecting the environment. However, as the number of bikes has surged, issues with parking and the safety of the public¡¯s travel have increasingly come to the fore.

This case, involving a traffic accident caused by the obstructive placement of ¡°shared-bikes¡±, demonstrates the judiciary¡¯s robust response to the traffic safety issues arising from the emerging industry. It also fully illustrates the judicial concept of ¡°hearing one case, governing one grid,¡± demonstrating proactive judicial governance. By leveraging judicial recommendations as a ¡°fine-tuning¡± tool to address ¡°major issues¡± in social governance, we can further foster a positive road traffic environment, achieving commendable social outcomes.

[Relevant Laws]

I. Civil Code of the People¡¯s Republic of China

Article 1165: Where a person infringes upon the civil rights and interests of others due to negligence and causes damage, they shall bear tort liability.

....

Article 1179: Where a person causes personal injury to another person by infringing upon them , they shall compensate for medical expenses, nursing expenses, transportation expenses, nutrition expenses, food subsidies for hospitalization, and other reasonable expenses incurred for treatment and rehabilitation, as well as income lost due to absence from work. Where a person causes disability to another, they should also compensate for the costs of assistive devices and disability compensation. If the injury results in death, they shall also additionally compensate for funeral expenses and death compensation.

II. Law of the People¡¯s Republic of China on Road Traffic Safety

Article 3: The work of road traffic safety shall be in compliance with the principles of administration according to law and convenience for the public, and shall guarantee the orderliness, safety, and smooth road traffic.

Article 59: Non-motorized vehicles shall be parked in designated areas. In the absence of designated parking areas, non-motorized vehicles shall not obstruct the passage of other vehicles and pedestrians.

(Case prepared by: Wang Yiqi and Hu Mingdong from Baoshan District People¡¯s Court)