The Case: Hand Model Claimed 100,000 Yuan for Her Hand Injured by a Dog

On August 24, 2001, the left hand of the hand model Zhang Lanlan (assumed name) was bitten by a dog belonging to Liu Yu (assumed name). She sought compensation from Liu because she could not fulfill two contracts due to her injured hand. Since the two sides failed to reach agreement, Zhang filed a lawsuit seeking 102,406 yuan (US$12,368), which included 2,406 yuan (US$291) for medical and transportation fees; 80,000 yuan (US$9,662) for economic loss from the two unfulfilled contracts and 20,000 yuan (US$2,416) for emotional damage. The case caused a public sensation.

Comparison of the Procedure

Chinese Side

After a brief opening ceremony, the trial started at 9:45 am in the second civil court of Beijing No.1 Intermediate People’s Court. Li Tao, the presiding judge, dressed in the normal Chinese judge’s military-style uniform, announced the opening of the session.

Firstly, an assessor of the collegiate bench called the plaintiff, Zhang Lanlan, to state her reason for filing the lawsuit, which was followed by a statement from her lawyer. The assessor then called the defendant, Liu Yu, to make her own statement. According to the defendant, the plaintiff Zhang Lanlan took the initiative in approaching the dog and should be responsible for the accidental injury she suffered. The defense lawyer argued that, despite the importance of her hands to her career, the plaintiff had failed to insure them and did not treat her hands seriously. Hence, the defendant should not have to bear the responsibility for her injury.

Their words immediately created a tense atmosphere in the court. The judge urged the two sides to calm down. The plaintiff showed the picture of her wounded hand. A member of the security staff of the community then gave evidence that he had found the plaintiff’s hand was bitten by the dog and was bleeding. He was followed by an appraiser who confirmed that the hand might have permanent scars, which mean the end of the plaintiff’s career.

However, the defendant firmly believed that it was the first time for the appraiser to make such an appraisal of the hand injury, and lawyers on both sides immediately became locked in a heated debate on this issue.

After one-and-a-half hour trial, the presiding judge made the final decision that the defendant Liu Yu should pay Zhang Lanlan 84, 000 yuan (US$10,145).

Australian Side

At 1 pm, the Australian judge opened the trial. The background had changed into the badge of the Commonwealth of Australia. Only the presiding judge appeared on the bench. The plaintiff and the defendant did not appear in court, as it is customary in Australia for the plaintiff and the defendant in civil suits to fully entrust their lawyers to argue the case for them. They could not defend themselves directly in court. The tone of the trial procedures appeared less serious than in the Chinese court. The presiding judge casually changed his sitting posture, and could even play with his glasses while he was listening to the statements from the lawyers. They, in turn, were very confident and strolled around the well of the court. When the heated debate between the two sides was finished, the presiding judge made the decision after the unanimous judgment of the jury that the defendant should pay the plaintiff 80,000 yuan (US$9,677) for her economic losses and 20,000 yuan (US$2,419) for mental suffering.

Interviewing Presiding Judges

According to Chinese presiding judge Li Tao, Australia judges have more jurisdiction than Chinese judges. They could make their own judgment according to the contents of the case, while Chinese judges must make their judgment according to strict legal regulations. China adopts the collegiate system, while Australia adopts the single judge system. In addition, they adopt the jury system for both civil or criminal cases, with number of jurors differing according to the situation.

“Although from different cultural backgrounds, we may have different ways in enforcing laws and decrees, our basic view is similar.”

According to Judge G.Trafford-Walker from the District Court of Queensland, the Chinese court is very democratic and fair without too much emphasis on trivial identification of materials during the trial. Neither the plaintiff nor the defendant can speak for themselves in Australia, and can only appear as witnesses.

Background

After China’s entry into the WTO, Beijing No.1 Intermediate People’s Court wishes to have judiciary communications with their foreign counterparts so as to promote cultural exchange and economic cooperation as well as better understand with each other. They gained active support from Australian side. A dozen senior judges from the Oceanian country visited Beijing on July 27 for exchanges and discussions on various legal problems.

(china.org.cn by Wang Qian, August 10, 2002)