Motor Vehicle Traffic Accident Research On Death Compensation Standard Of Compensation For Personal Injury

Nowadays, with the rapid development of economic, roads lead in all directions. Convenient traffic, increasing vehicle make the city area smaller, and due to high number of deaths in traffic accidents each year, numerous disputes and litigation are caused by different amount of compensation for death.However, China’s system of compensation for death development lag, although "the same life but different prices" compensation standard can solve practical problems, it has caused great social contradictions, resulting in some indignation such as "the life of city people is expensive than that of rural people", or "Shanghai people’s life is the most valuable" Therefore, the research on the death compensation standard of high incidence of places, more general and more controversial death compensation of motor vehicle traffic accident damage compensation, has theoretical and practical significance.The article is divided into three parts. The first part takes the case of motor vehicle traffic accident in Zhejiang province which caused many deaths happened after the "tort liability law" enacted as the basis, it indicates that after the "tort liability law" is enacted, the provisions of article seventeenth does not make it achieve that " the same life, the same price" in motor vehicle personal injury compensation in China."The same life, the same price" is a kind of choice and hope. At the same time, this part defines the point of controversy and the discussion for research in order to clear the writing purpose and significance.The second part deals with the case problems in the first part, to analysis partly from the view of a legal point, the role of the compensation subject, compensation method and perspective in practice "tort liability law" on the death compensation to achieve "the same life price" provisions, obtains the reason that the amount of compensation for death in motor vehicle traffic accident personal injury compensation cannot be unified in our country nowadays. At the same time, it points out "the same life the same price" should not be simply understood as the same amount ofcompensation, and the equality of result is not the fully reflect of fairness. In thepresent society, to realize fairness can only in the form of equity in seeking to achievea relatively fair method, in order to achieve "the same compensation of life".Therefore, only a single death compensation calculation standard can satisfy the"same lives with valence" requirement, in the form of equality and result equality twoaspects to realize the fair compensation for infringement of the life right.The third part judges the first portion of the case verdict, points out that right andwrong, and puts forward the method to solve the problem. In this part, there’s asuggestion on the same motor vehicle traffic accidents caused personal injury, deathcompensation to the annual per capita disposable income of urban residents ascompensation standard, according to the20annual compensation, and does notdistinguish age, occupation." to carry out a package" compensation" in order toachieve the same life, the same price".