[case] Mr. Zheng collided with an electric bicycle while driving a motor vehicle, and thanked Mr. Zheng for his injury. In order to save people, Mr. Zheng drove the accident vehicle to send Mr. Xie for medical treatment. On the way to the hospital, he telephoned the traffic police and returned to the scene of the accident to cooperate with the traffic police after settling Mr. Xie. However, the location was not marked when he changed the scene to rescue the wounded. The traffic police department determined that Zheng had improper driving operation and was mainly responsible for the accident. Later, Xiemou was rated as grade 8 disabled, so he sued the court for an order to compensate the loss of 300000 yuan. However, an insurance company refused to pay compensation on the ground that Zheng drove the insured motor vehicle away from the scene of the accident. The court held that the traffic police department determined that Zheng was mainly responsible for the accident because of improper driving, so Zheng's driving away from the scene did not affect the determination of accident responsibility, nor did it increase the proportion of responsibility that Zheng should bear. The duty of rescuing the wounded maintains the value of life, while the purpose of other duties is to determine the accident responsibility. The former is obviously more important than the latter. In this case, Mr. Zheng notified the insurance company in time. There was no problem that the loss was difficult to determine due to the failure to notify the insurance company in time, which did not comply with the legal situation of the insurance company refusing to pay compensation as stipulated in Article 21 of the insurance law. Therefore, it was decided that an insurance company should compensate 126000 yuan within the limit of commercial third party liability insurance and 110000 yuan within the limit of traffic compulsory insurance. [statement] motor vehicle drivers flee the scene of the accident without authorization after the accident, which is easy to make the civil, administrative and criminal liabilities caused by the accident uncertain. The purpose of setting up traffic accident escape and insurance refusal clauses is to punish the behavior of shirking and escaping responsibility. In this case, Zheng intended to save people, not to escape. According to Article 70 of the road traffic safety law, in case of a traffic accident on the road, the vehicle driver shall stop immediately to protect the scene; If personal injury or death is caused, the driver of the vehicle shall immediately rescue the injured and promptly report to the traffic police on duty or the traffic management department of the public security organ. The vehicle driver's first rescue of the wounded is not only a mandatory obligation, but also in line with the value concept of saving people first. In this case, in order to timely rescue the victims after the traffic accident, the driver neglected to indicate the location when changing the scene, but this negligence did not lead to an improper increase in the insurer's insurance liability. The insurer's request for exemption according to the insurance contract is not in line with the legislative purpose of the road traffic safety law, nor conducive to highlighting the value of judicial ethics. Proceeding from the legislative purpose and the people-oriented concept, the people's court made a fact finding that was beneficial to the insured, which made the performance of the insurance contract more in line with public order and good customs, and was more conducive to carrying forward the socialist core values. (outlook new era)