An octogenarian named Wang was knocked over by the door of a bus when he got off, and he subsequently sued both the bus company and the insurance company that covered the bus. Recently, the Intermediate People's Court of Nantong City, Jiangsu Province, upheld the final judgment of the first instance in this urban public transportation contract dispute case, stating that the bus company's drivers failed to fulfill their duty of prudence and should bear the liability for breach of contract. In February 2023, Wang took a bus out and got off at the station. However, just as she landed with both feet but still had contact with the bus body, the driver closed the door and started the vehicle. Unfortunately, Wang was hit by the car door and fell to the ground, unable to move for a moment. Later, Wang was sent to the hospital for treatment and diagnosed with a left femoral neck fracture, constituting a ninth degree disability. He then sued the bus company and insurance company to the court, requesting that the two defendants jointly compensate for medical expenses, disability assistive device fees, hospitalization meal allowances, lost wages, and other expenses totaling more than 230000 yuan. It was also found that the buses of the bus company had been insured with road passenger carrier insurance by the insurance company, and the accident occurred during the insurance period. In the trial, the bus company argued that the driver had language prompts during the process of passengers getting on and off the bus. As a passenger, Wang failed to fulfill his normal safety precautions and committed gross negligence, and should bear the responsibility for the losses on his own. The insurance company argued that passenger Wang's feet had already detached from the bus and belonged to a third party, which should not be borne by the carrier according to liability insurance, and objectively, it did not sign a supplementary agreement with the bus company regarding the damage that occurred during the passenger's boarding and alighting process. The focus of controversy in this case is: who should bear Wang's losses? From the monitoring, it can be seen that the driver did not fulfill his duty of caution when the vehicle arrived at the station. After Wang got off the car, but his body still had a close attachment and partial overlap with the vehicle in space, he closed the door, causing Wang to fall to the ground and be injured. After Wang paid the fare for boarding the bus, a transportation contract was established between him and the bus company. The damage resulted in the driver's door closing behavior, which led to Wang falling and injuring himself throughout the entire process after getting off the bus. According to the relativity of the contract, the bus company should bear the liability for breach of contract. In addition, as this case is a transportation contract dispute, the liability of the bus company for compensation to Wang is uncertain before the court judgment. Even if the liability for compensation is determined, the insurance company can only compensate Wang for the insurance benefits based on the request of the bus company. There is no evidence to prove that the bus company was negligent in claiming its rights from the insurance company, so Wang's request for compensation from the insurance company is unfounded. The insurance contract relationship between bus companies and insurance companies shall be handled separately. In summary, the court ruled that the bus company should compensate Wang for a total loss of over 230000 yuan. The bus company is dissatisfied and has appealed to the second instance court. The Nantong Intermediate People's Court upheld the original verdict after trial. Article 65 of the Insurance Law of the People's Republic of China stipulates: "If the insured of liability insurance causes damage to a third party and the liability of the insured for compensation to the third party is determined, the insurer shall directly compensate the third party for the insurance benefits upon the request of the insured. If the insured is negligent in making the request, the third party has the right to directly request compensation from the insurer for the part of the compensation that should be received." This article establishes three systems from the perspective of protecting the interests of victims: the system of transferring the right to claim insurance benefits, the system of subrogation for insurance benefits, and the system of restricting the collection of insurance benefits, while granting the third party the right to make direct claims. To determine whether 'negligence in request' is valid, consideration should be given to both the method and timing of the request. In terms of request method, after the liability for damages is determined, the insured should and can request the insurer to compensate the injured third party for the insurance benefits, but does not request or delays the request; In terms of requesting time, if a third party files a lawsuit against the insurer as the defendant, and the insured has not yet made a direct request to the insurer to pay the insurance benefits to the third party, it can be deemed as "negligent in the request". In this case, it cannot be determined that the bus company was negligent in the request, therefore the court cannot support Wang's claim for compensation from the insurance company, and can only determine that the bus company should bear the responsibility based on the relativity of the contract. (New Society)