From a Civil and Commercial Perspective: The Court Does Not Protect Claims Filed Beyond the Statute of Limitations
Published:
2025-01-24
Plaintiff A filed a lawsuit with the court, requesting the court to: 1. Order defendants B, C, and D to jointly compensate plaintiff A for all economic losses suffered due to injury, including medical expenses, lost work wages, etc., totaling 130,000 yuan; 2. Defendants B, C, and D to bear the litigation costs of the case. Facts and Reasons: The plaintiff and defendants are neighbors living above and below each other. On June 12, 2019, plaintiff A and defendant D's child were playing downstairs. During the play, defendant D accidentally knocked plaintiff A to the ground while riding a small bicycle, resulting in an injury to plaintiff A's left arm. The hospital diagnosed it as an open fracture, incurring medical expenses of over 20,000 yuan. An assessment by a certain appraisal center determined it constituted a level ten disability. Plaintiff requests the court to make a fair judgment in accordance with the law and support the plaintiff's claims. The author represents the three defendants in this case and argues that plaintiff A's claims exceed the statutory period for filing a lawsuit, and the court should dismiss all of plaintiff A's claims according to the law. The appraisal opinion unilaterally commissioned by the plaintiff before the lawsuit is not recognized and should not be used as evidence. During the litigation process, after an assessment by a court-appointed appraisal center, it was determined that plaintiff A's injuries do not constitute a disability.
Case Summary
Plaintiff A filed a lawsuit against the court, requesting the court to: 1. Order defendants B, C, and D to jointly compensate plaintiff A for all economic losses suffered due to injury, including medical expenses, lost work expenses, totaling 130,000 yuan; 2. Defendants B, C, and D to bear the litigation costs of the case.
Facts and Reasons: The plaintiff and defendants are neighbors living upstairs and downstairs. On June 12, 2019, plaintiff A and defendant D's two children were playing downstairs. During the play, defendant D accidentally knocked plaintiff A down while riding a small bicycle, resulting in an injury to plaintiff A's left arm; the hospital diagnosed it as an open fracture, costing over 20,000 yuan in medical expenses. An appraisal center determined it constituted a level ten disability, and the court is requested to make a fair judgment in accordance with the law, supporting the plaintiff's claims.
The author represents the three defendants in this case and argues that plaintiff A's claims exceed the statutory period of limitation for lawsuits, and the court should dismiss all claims made by plaintiff A; the appraisal opinion unilaterally commissioned by the plaintiff before the lawsuit should not be recognized and should not be used as evidence.
During the litigation process, after the court commissioned an appraisal center to provide an opinion, it was determined that plaintiff A's injuries do not constitute a disability.
The court believes
The focal points of the dispute in this case are: 1. Whether defendant D and their guardians should bear responsibility for plaintiff A's losses; 2. Whether plaintiff A's claims exceed the statute of limitations.
1. Regarding the first focal issue
This case is a civil dispute arising from legal facts before the implementation of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China, and should apply the laws and judicial interpretations in effect at that time. After a court hearing, based on the statements of both parties, it was confirmed that plaintiff A and defendant D indeed had a physical collision at the time of the incident, but both parties only provided their own statements regarding the cause and process of the collision, with no surveillance video or other evidence to support their claims. Furthermore, the statements regarding the cause and process of the collision were inconsistent between the two parties, thus it is impossible to determine any fault between plaintiff A and defendant D based solely on the existing evidence. Article 24 of the Tort Liability Law of the People's Republic of China states: "If neither the victim nor the actor is at fault for the occurrence of the damage, the loss may be shared by both parties according to the actual situation." Article 32 states: "If a person without civil capacity or a person with limited civil capacity causes damage to another person, the guardian shall bear tort liability." Therefore, based on the above legal provisions and the actual situation of the collision between the two parties, the guardians of defendant D, B and C, should share the losses of plaintiff A.
2. Regarding the second focal issue
This case is a civil dispute arising from legal facts before the implementation of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China, and should apply the laws and judicial interpretations in effect at that time. Article 188 of the General Principles of Civil Law of the People's Republic of China states: "The statute of limitations for requesting protection of civil rights from the people's court is three years. If the law provides otherwise, it shall be implemented according to its provisions. The statute of limitations begins from the day the right holder knows or should know that their rights have been infringed and the obligor." Article 194 states: "If, within the last six months of the statute of limitations, the right holder is unable to exercise their right due to the following obstacles, the statute of limitations shall be suspended: (1) force majeure; ..." Article 195 states: "If any of the following circumstances occur, the statute of limitations shall be interrupted, and the statute of limitations shall be recalculated from the time of interruption or the conclusion of the relevant procedure: (1) the right holder requests the obligor to perform their obligation; (2) the obligor agrees to perform their obligation; (3) the right holder files a lawsuit or applies for arbitration; (4) other circumstances that have the same effect as filing a lawsuit or applying for arbitration." The accident in this case occurred on June 12, 2019, and plaintiff A was admitted to the hospital on the same day and discharged on June 19, 2019, thus they should have known that their rights were infringed and the identity of the obligor. Defendant B stated that they visited plaintiff A on July 17, 2019, after which plaintiff A did not claim rights from the three defendants again. Therefore, the interruption of the statute of limitations should be recalculated from July 17, 2019. Plaintiff A claims that they have been seeking rights from the three defendants since the incident, and that they have been negotiating with the three defendants both before and after filing the lawsuit, but did not provide sufficient evidence. Plaintiff A applied for the case to be filed on November 17, 2022, claiming that the application was submitted between May and July 2022, and that it should be deducted due to factors such as network upgrades and pandemic lockdowns.
This court believes that the suspension of the statute of limitations occurs within the last six months of the statute of limitations, but the force majeure that leads to the suspension must simultaneously meet the prerequisite condition of being unable to exercise the right to claim. Plaintiff A claims a deduction or suspension of the statute of limitations but has not provided evidence to prove that they were unable to claim rights from the court or the obligor, and the court provided online filing methods such as a service platform and WeChat mini-program during the pandemic, so there were no obstacles to exercising their right to claim. Therefore, the reasons claimed by plaintiff A for the suspension or interruption of the statute of limitations are not valid, and by the time of filing in this court, the three-year statute of limitations had already expired. The three defendants raised a defense against the performance of obligations due to exceeding the statute of limitations, which this court accepts.
In summary, this court believes that plaintiff A was injured due to a collision with defendant D, and neither party is at fault. Defendant D's guardian should legally share the losses. However, plaintiff A's claims exceed the legally stipulated statute of limitations, and the three defendants raised a defense against the performance of obligations, thus this court does not support their claims. The court will not recognize the amounts claimed for various losses. The court also conducted mediation between both parties during the litigation process, but the mediation did not succeed. The court rules to dismiss plaintiff A's claims.
Lawyer's Opinion
First,This case involves disputes over the right to health, bodily rights, and the right to life. The tort occurred before the implementation of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China and should apply the relevant legal provisions and judicial interpretations of the Tort Liability Law. Plaintiff A and defendant D are both persons without civil capacity and cannot independently bear civil liability. Plaintiff A has the burden of proof regarding the causal relationship between their injuries and defendant D, as well as the various losses.
Second,Since plaintiff A unilaterally commissioned an appraisal agency for appraisal before the lawsuit, this procedure is considered an out-of-court appraisal process, and the defendants did not participate. For the defendants, if the appraisal conclusion is adopted by the court as the basis for the litigation result, there will inevitably be a rights imbalance both substantively and procedurally. Therefore, the appraisal opinion unilaterally commissioned by plaintiff A before filing the lawsuit should not be accepted as evidence. Later, plaintiff A applied to the court for an appraisal, and both parties jointly selected the appraisal agency, which the court commissioned to provide an appraisal opinion. This appraisal opinion concluded that plaintiff A's injuries do not constitute a disability.
Finally,According to the medical records and hospitalization case submitted by Plaintiff A, the injury occurred on June 12, 2019, while the lawsuit was filed on November 17, 2022. The three defendants argue that the plaintiff's claims have exceeded the statute of limitations. Plaintiff A bears the burden of proof regarding the statute of limitations and has not asserted any rights during the limitation period. Clearly, Plaintiff A's claims have exceeded the legally stipulated statute of limitations and should be dismissed according to the law.
In summary, we believe that as the defendants, even if the plaintiff's claims exceed the statute of limitations, evidence regarding the plaintiff's substantive rights should still be subjected to examination, and we should fully express our agency opinions both procedurally and substantively to protect the legitimate rights of the parties involved.
(Statement: This article reflects the author's viewpoints based on experience and is intended for discussion and exchange.)
Key words:
Related News
Zhongcheng Qingtai Jinan Region
Address: Floor 55-57, Jinan China Resources Center, 11111 Jingshi Road, Lixia District, Jinan City, Shandong Province
