Recently, the Fourth Civil Division of the Supreme People’s Court successfully mediated a case involving foreign-related maritime personal injury liability dispute, effectively safeguarding the legitimate rights and interests of the family members of a crew member who went abroad for work, and providing a valuable judicial practice sample for handling similar cases.
“This case was very difficult to handle.”
This case originated from Chen Mou’s coordination and arrangement for his fellow villager Lin Mou to go to the Republic of The Gambia (hereinafter referred to as “The Gambia”) to work on a ship as a crew member. Unfortunately, Lin Mou contracted malaria during the journey and died after treatment proved ineffective at a local hospital in The Gambia.
Subsequently, Lin Mou’s family sued Chen Mou and his wife in court, demanding that they bear compensation liability for Lin Mou’s death, with the claimed amount exceeding one million yuan.
“This case was very difficult to handle,” said O Haiyan, a judge from the Supreme People’s Court’s Fourth Civil Division, in an interview with the reporter.
On one hand, Chen Mou was working far overseas and rarely returned to China, which posed many obstacles to progressing procedures such as document service and court hearings.
On the other hand, the facts of the case occurred abroad, separated by vast geographical distance, and there were significant differences in medical diagnosis and treatment standards between hospitals in different countries. Therefore, ascertaining relevant facts, such as whether Chen Mou had fulfilled his duty of care, became very difficult.
Even more difficult, the parties were originally fellow villagers from the same village. Now, one side had to face the harsh reality of their relative dying in a foreign land, while the other side faced the heavy burden of high compensation. The antagonism between the parties was severe, conflicts were intensifying, and the room for mediation was limited.
Faced with these difficulties, the collegial panel did not retreat.
During the in-depth investigation, the collegial panel believed that Chen Mou had taken a series of measures after the incident, and his original intention was not malicious.
At the same time, both parties involved came from rural families and were not financially well-off. This case involved people’s livelihoods and hometown sentiments, concerning the balance and integration of legal principles and human feelings. Therefore, it could not be handled simply; it required consideration of fellow-villager sentiment, humanistic care, and the value of providing judicial protection and support for those working overseas.
“Only by going to the parties can you enter their hearts.”
To break the deadlock, Presiding Judge Huang Xiwu, handling judge O Haiyan, and judge assistant Zhao Ke decided to go to Ningbo to conduct a circuit trial, listen to the demands of both parties face-to-face, and preside over mediation work.
As Chen Mou was far away in The Gambia and remote communication faced obstacles like time differences, this mediation session did not immediately result in a mediation agreement. However, this “on-site” case handling laid a solid foundation for the subsequent successful mediation.
In O Haiyan’s view, circuit trials are “mobile courts” and, more importantly, a deep emotional connection. They allow the parties to genuinely feel the warmth and sincerity of the judiciary, thereby building trust and respect for the judicial system.
“Only by getting close to the parties can we delve into the case and truly connect with them,” Ou Haiyan admitted candidly. “Face-to-face mediation allows the parties to feel valued and respected, making them realize the court sincerely intends to help resolve their issues. This way, they can wholeheartedly accept the judgment, achieving true closure—settling the case, resolving the dispute, and restoring harmony.”
Subsequently, the collegial panel slowed its pace as Ou Haiyan and Zhao Ke continued mediating between both parties over the phone.
For Lin’s family members, they patiently eased their depressive emotions, guiding them to rationally face the future.
For Chen, they communicated repeatedly, shifting his pessimistic mindset of “just let the court rule—at worst, I’ll go bankrupt,” helping him recognize that paying compensation within his capacity was both moral solace for the bereaved family and a legal duty he ought to fulfill.
It was through such persistent and patient communication that the gap in expectations between the two sides gradually narrowed.
“Lawyers’ cooperation is crucial in facilitating mediation”
“The two lawyers in this case, Jiang Junhua and Xu Jiayang, were exceptionally ‘supportive,’ which deeply moved us,” Ou Haiyan told reporters, noting that lawyers play a vital role in judicial proceedings as a bridge between judges and litigants.
“A lawyer, as a party’s agent, serves their client. Precisely because the client trusts them, they entrust them with litigation,” Ou Haiyan explained. “Thus, clients often initially prefer confiding their true thoughts to their own lawyers. Therefore, if lawyers actively cooperate with mediation—accurately conveying the judge’s perspective in a way the parties can more easily understand and accept—they can create more favorable conditions for successful mediation.”
Lawyers Jiang Junhua and Xu Jiayang actively collaborated with the court’s mediation efforts, appropriately communicating with both sides to prevent further escalation of conflict. When mediation reached an impasse, the two lawyers voluntarily proposed to the court and the parties that the legal fees they had already collected be repurposed as funds to support the mediation.
“Lawyers’ cooperation is crucial in facilitating mediation,” Ou Haiyan reflected. “That these two lawyers were willing to sacrifice personal interests to help resolve the dispute is highly commendable. The close collaboration and positive interaction between the court and lawyers also fully demonstrate the effective development of a legal professional community.”
“Striving to ensure the people feel fairness and justice in every judicial case”
Balancing disparities across different legal systems and delicately handling the nuanced relationship between human sentiment and legal principles were key considerations for the collegial panel.
“Adjudicating cases must adhere to the principle of ‘facts as the basis, law as the criterion,'” Ou Haiyan explained to reporters. However, the rigid application of law must also incorporate judicial warmth—balancing the interests of both parties while giving full play to the guiding role of core socialist values.
Ou Haiyan explained to the reporter that regarding the handling of this case, it was necessary both to prevent a situation where “overseas workers have no one to care for them and die in a foreign land,” and to avoid a situation where “the duty of care is too heavy, leading to no one daring to introduce fellow villagers to ‘work abroad’.”
With active communication and coordination from all sides, the situation took a turn for the better.
Lin Mou’s family made concessions, while at the same time, Chen Mou and his wife expressed their willingness to provide a one-time compensation to Lin Mou’s family.
Ultimately, the two parties reached a settlement. O Haiyan told the reporter: “This outcome took into account both ‘enforceability’ and ‘the bearing capacity of both parties’.”
“The core of handling cases always lies in adhering to the facts and the law, and ensuring open and transparent procedures,” O Haiyan summarized. “Our purpose is to let the people feel fairness and justice in every judicial case.”
