Abstract
Defendant A, operating Passenger Car A at approximately 18:58 on a specified date in 2022, was traveling along an east-west roadway toward an intersection. While Defendant A was obligated to yield to continuous traffic, conditions at that time permitted observation. Nonetheless, due to alleged negligence, A proceeded to execute a left turn onto the bridge. Simultaneously, Rider B, operating an ordinary heavy motorcycle (Motorcycle B), approached from the same direction. Unable to brake in time, B collided with A’s vehicle, fell, and succumbed to injuries after 15 hours of emergency medical treatment. The prosecutor ordered a review of the accident assessment and cited its findings as the basis for the indictment. The assessment determined that B was the primary cause of the accident (speeding while approaching an unsignalized intersection, overtaking from behind, and driving without a license), while A was the secondary cause (failure to monitor the dynamics of the vehicle approaching from the left rear during the turn). The defendant reconstructed the scene utilizing physical evidence, stating that: A drove normally, signaled, and initiated a left turn after passing the center of the intersection. Upon observing an anomaly on the left, A brake immediately upon contact. Conversely, B was exceeding the speed limit significantly, crossed the double yellow line while approaching the intersection, and applied urgent brakes. Due to inertia, B’s body impacted the front of the motorcycle; the motorcycle then veered slowly to the left, B lost his grip and fell to the left, and the motorcycle deflected to the right-front, striking the left-front of A’s vehicle. The key defense arguments included: 1) The police sketch lacked distance data between the stop line and the bridge pier, rendering it impossible to determine the relative positioning of the vehicles in relation to the bridge. 2) B sustained a traumatic liver rupture accompanied by significant intra-abdominal hemorrhage and severe bilateral pulmonary contusions. Supported by trace evidence, these injuries were argued to result from B’s loss of control due to speeding and the subsequent violent impact against his own motorcycle console—behavior associated with his unlicensed status. The court held that, as B was a following vehicle rather than a leading or parallel vehicle, Article 94, Paragraph 3 of the Road Traffic Safety Rules was not applicable to A. Additionally, A could not reasonably anticipate B’s traffic violation or unsafe driving behavior. Therefore, the court rendered a verdict of not guilty. In this case, the defendant introduced over ten pieces of physical evidence in his defense, providing a valuable reference for accident reconstruction specialists.
Key words: Patterned injury, Traffic accident appraisal, Scene reconstruction, Road traffic accident