Two years ago, while my aunt was working in the provincial capital, she was hit and injured by an auxiliary police officer patrolling on an electric bike. After several months of treatment, she was left with a disability. What initially seemed like a minor dispute turned into a prolonged tug-of-war, and the case was only recently resolved. I believe it’s necessary to share how to handle such issues.
Brief Case Overview
One evening in September 2022, my aunt, while working as a sanitation worker, was pushing a garbage cart on foot when she was hit from behind by an auxiliary police officer riding a police electric bicycle. She was immediately taken to the hospital for treatment. Later, the traffic police issued a “Road Traffic Accident Determination Report,” confirming that the auxiliary officer was fully responsible for the accident.
After being discharged from the hospital, my aunt was diagnosed with a level 10 disability. A simple calculation of disability compensation, medical expenses, and lost wages totaled approximately 220,000 yuan. Of this, 70,000 yuan was for medical expenses, and the auxiliary officer had already paid about 40,000 yuan during the treatment process.
The Rights Protection Process
Negotiation for Settlement
The case was relatively straightforward initially, as both the involved auxiliary officer and the local police station cooperated actively. I thought it would be best to negotiate directly with the police station for compensation rather than going through the judicial process.
While my aunt was still in the provincial capital after her discharge, I guided her to handle the workers’ compensation issue with her original labor company and also directed her to negotiate the accident compensation with the traffic police brigade and the local police station (which are part of the same unit).
Overall, the negotiation process went smoothly. The police station promised a compensation of 140,000 yuan, plus the 40,000 yuan already paid by the auxiliary officer, totaling 180,000 yuan. After deducting the 70,000 yuan in medical expenses, my aunt would receive about 110,000 yuan. Although this amount was slightly below the legal standard, it was within a reasonable range for a level 10 disability.
However, the issue arose with the payment. The promised compensation, which was agreed upon around February 2023, kept being delayed. Reasons included the local People’s Congress not having convened, making it impossible to apply for a budget; the police station head being transferred, with the new leader unaware of the matter; and local financial constraints requiring further delays.
During this drawn-out process, the police station did take some action. In July 2023, they helped my aunt apply for 20,000 yuan in judicial assistance, which provided some immediate relief.
The main problem was that the primary compensation remained unpaid, which was frustrating. By September 2023, during another round of negotiations, the new police station leader reduced the promised compensation to only 100,000 yuan. This was 20,000 yuan less than the original agreement, and for a low-income family, this reduction was significant. Ultimately, I advised my aunt to pursue legal action.
Litigation for Rights Protection
Legal Aid
Given my aunt’s financial situation, I first recommended applying for legal aid, which would provide her with free legal representation. There were three main reasons for this:
- Language Barrier: My aunt, who had rarely left her hometown before the age of 50, primarily spoke her local dialect. Although she could understand Mandarin from years of watching TV, she struggled to speak it fluently. Without someone patient to communicate with her, it would be difficult for her to navigate the legal process. Additionally, with her children not around, having a legal representative was the best option.
- Geographical Distance: After handling the workers’ compensation, my aunt returned to her hometown. Due to her disability and age, it was unlikely she would return to the city for work. However, the accident compensation process required her to be in the provincial capital. To avoid further inconvenience, hiring a lawyer was necessary.
- Eligibility for Legal Aid: My aunt’s family had long been financially struggling, with her husband falling into poverty due to illness. They were on government assistance, making her fully eligible for legal aid. Moreover, during the workers’ compensation process, she had already hired a legal aid lawyer, which had been effective in quickly securing compensation through negotiation.
Encountering an Unethical Lawyer
Unexpectedly, the legal aid lawyer assigned to this case repeatedly crossed ethical boundaries in the first few months.
- Inducing the Client to Switch from Legal Aid to Paid Representation: After being assigned by the judicial bureau, the lawyer repeatedly emphasized the high risks of the case to my aunt. He claimed that since the defendant was the public security bureau, and the involved police station and traffic police brigade were its subordinate units, it would be difficult to secure compensation without his connections. He suggested that without his intervention, she might not receive any compensation.
- Inducing the Client to Sign a Risk Representation Agreement: The lawyer also presented a bizarre argument, claiming that the case was not a traffic accident dispute but a state compensation case. He warned that if the lawsuit was mishandled, she might receive nothing. He insisted that she sign a risk representation agreement, paying 20,000 yuan upfront and an additional 20% of any compensation received later.
- Maligning My Role: During conversations with my aunt, the lawyer learned that I had been guiding her through the process. He immediately began to discredit me, calling me a “fake lawyer” who had no experience in litigation and didn’t understand the necessary connections to navigate the case. This left my aunt confused about whom to trust.
Analyzing the Risks of Rights Protection
During my visit home in early 2024, I quickly helped my aunt sort out the issues with the legal aid lawyer.
Regarding Litigation Risks: I had explained to my aunt early on that the only risk in her case was the police station denying that the auxiliary officer was involved in the accident during work hours. However, I had already guided her to obtain evidence from the traffic police brigade, which clearly showed that the auxiliary officer was on patrol and caused the accident due to negligence. Based on my years of experience, it was unlikely that the traffic police brigade, police station, or public security bureau would tamper with this evidence. After all, the compensation would come from state funds, and the accident was an unfortunate event. No one would risk their job or commit a crime to alter the evidence, especially given the relatively low compensation amount.
Regarding the Length of the Rights Protection Process: The delays were largely due to systemic issues within the government. Initially, I believed that such a small compensation case could be settled directly by the police station. However, the unexpected tightening of local finances in 2023 meant that the compensation likely needed to come from the police station’s administrative budget or require additional funding from the local government. The reasons given by the police station for the delays were not entirely unfounded. In such cases, pursuing legal action was the only option. With a clear court ruling, the police station’s obligation to pay would be undeniable.
Regarding Paid Representation: In my opinion, even if the case went to court, there was a 90% chance it would end in mediation. Given that the local court’s traffic accident circuit court was located within the traffic police brigade’s office, and the other party was the public security bureau, both the court and the bureau would prefer a mediated settlement. Therefore, the entire litigation process would likely involve submitting the necessary documents for filing and waiting for the court to arrange mediation. The public security bureau essentially wanted a legal document as the basis for payment. The legal aid lawyer’s claims were merely a ploy to extract money.
Regarding Evidence Collection: The lawyer also claimed that many of the materials my aunt had, such as photos taken with her phone, were inadmissible as evidence. He argued that documents like the accident report and the auxiliary officer’s identity needed to be obtained from the public security bureau, which might not cooperate. I quickly dispelled this concern by pointing out that the traffic accident circuit court was located within the traffic police brigade’s office, making it easy to obtain the necessary documents. The traffic police brigade and the police station were part of the same public security bureau, so verifying the auxiliary officer’s identity would be straightforward. There was no reason for anyone to falsify such information.
However, the lawyer had only communicated with my aunt (and my cousin) verbally or via WeChat calls, leaving no written or recorded evidence. After a prolonged back-and-forth, I helped my aunt file a complaint with the provincial 12345 platform before the Spring Festival. The judicial bureau promptly notified her to change her legal aid lawyer.
The Lengthy Filing Process
After changing the legal aid lawyer, the new lawyer quickly organized the necessary documents, including the complaint and evidence list, and submitted them to the court. However, as is well known, courts have been implementing various measures to control the number of cases, with “pre-litigation mediation” being a common tactic. Initially, the court contacted my aunt, suggesting that the public security bureau wanted to negotiate. During the mediation, the bureau offered a maximum of 120,000 yuan in compensation but hinted that the 20,000 yuan in judicial assistance might need to be reclaimed, as it was managed by another department within the bureau. This effectively reduced the guaranteed compensation to 100,000 yuan. After several months of back-and-forth, the bureau couldn’t resolve the issue of reclaiming the assistance funds (which, according to regulations, should normally be reclaimed). I advised my aunt to abandon the pre-litigation mediation and wait for the court to formally file the case. This wait lasted until October 2024.
Mediated Settlement
Just before the 2025 New Year, the case, which had dragged on for two years, finally reached its court date. As expected, it ended in pre-trial mediation. The terms had already been largely agreed upon, with the public security bureau having no real issue with reclaiming the 20,000 yuan. However, they were unwilling to make a written commitment beyond the legal requirements. Under the judge’s mediation, the agreement explicitly addressed the issue of reclaiming the judicial assistance funds. The final outcome was that the public security bureau would pay 120,000 yuan in one lump sum, with an additional 20,000 yuan to be paid within one month if the judicial assistance funds were reclaimed.
This result was identical to the initial agreement with the police station in late 2022: 140,000 yuan from the public security bureau plus 40,000 yuan from the auxiliary officer. After deducting the 70,000 yuan in medical expenses, my aunt received 110,000 yuan in compensation. However, the two-year delay and the associated stress could not be compensated.
Case Summary
Overall, this was a relatively simple traffic accident dispute. However, three unique factors made it particularly challenging for ordinary citizens, leading to prolonged delays and extended rights protection processes.
The Dual Role of the Public Security Bureau: In this case, the public security bureau had multiple roles—it was both a party to the traffic accident and the investigating authority, as well as the mediator for the dispute. This overlapping of roles made it difficult for ordinary citizens to feel secure. Additionally, the traffic accident circuit court being located within the traffic police brigade’s office further blurred the lines, making it seem like the court and the bureau were part of the same entity. This created a perception of high risk in pursuing rights protection. However, in most cases, having the circuit court within the traffic police brigade’s office actually improves efficiency for citizens seeking justice.
Lack of Insurance Involvement: In this case, the auxiliary officer’s police electric bike was uninsured, which significantly complicated the compensation process. Without insurance, the public security bureau had to allocate funds from its budget, which posed substantial administrative challenges. Unless it was an exceptional case, such unbudgeted payments often face lengthy delays.
The Specificity of Judicial Assistance: The entire 2024 dispute revolved around the 20,000 yuan in judicial assistance. Having worked in judicial assistance for many years, I understood the core issue: when a party receives compensation, the judicial assistance funds can be reclaimed. Even if the public security bureau verbally promised not to reclaim the funds, without written confirmation, no ordinary citizen could feel at ease. After all, there are numerous cases where judicial assistance funds were reclaimed due to audits or inspections. However, if the assistance bureau had provided written confirmation, there would at least be some room for negotiation. Without it, there was no recourse. Ultimately, only a court ruling could definitively resolve this issue.