It turns out that Mr. Ma entered Shenjiahu Expressway from Chuannanfeng toll station at 6 oclock in the evening of the incident.
During the monitoring, it can be found that Mr. Ma entered the expressway directly through the toll gate, all of which was under the eyes of the toll collectors, but there was no sign that the toll collectors stopped him.
The toll collector on duty thought that he entered the toll gate by mistake and then turned back, so he didnt stop him, so Mr. Ma was able to enter the expressway. But on duty toll collection personnels not to block and not to call the police, in the Ma familys view is unacceptable. They think its because of the inaction of the toll collectors that Mr. Ma got into the expressway and was killed.
Mr. Mas family appealed for compensation from the highway maintenance management company. But the defendant thought they were not at fault. As maintenance managers, they have set up closed guardrails and fences in accordance with national laws and industry standards, and set up eye-catching warning signs at each toll gate of expressways to prohibit pedestrians and non motor vehicles from entering. Mr. Ma is in violation of the prohibition sign, and is naturally responsible for his own illegal behavior. So they have no obligation to pay compensation.
But the plaintiff thinks that the defendant is to avoid the heavy work and neglect the light work, and to excuse the serious work mistakes of his staff. If the staff stopped or called the police at that time, Mr. Ma would not have happened. The defendant felt that the plaintiffs requirements were beyond the scope of work of the toll collector. Because its their job to serve as toll collectors for motor vehicles, they have no legal obligation to prevent or call the police when they find people entering the highway by mistake. Of course, they also admit that due to social responsibility, the high-speed management has a complete working process for finding pedestrians and non motor vehicles entering by mistake, and the staff on duty fails to follow the process. But its not illegal, and it has no causal relationship with Mr. Mas death.
The plaintiff and the defendant held each others opinions, and the trial was once deadlocked. At this time, the defendant proposed to display the surveillance video of Mr. Ma before the accident, because they suspected that Mr. Ma had signs of suicide.
From the perspective of monitoring, Mr. Ma drove an electric bicycle to move back and forth between the emergency lane and the traffic lane before the accident, and his behavior was very dangerous. However, the family members of Mr. Ma, the plaintiff, thought that Mr. Ma had a stable life, normal mood, and no reason for suicide. As for his behavior on the highway, they did not know the reason. With the trial going on, although the opinions between the plaintiff and the defendant are quite different, after many times of mediation with the judge, the two sides finally reached a mediation under the auspices of the court.