The short answer

  • The 12 months after you get your licence are the internship period for novice drivers. To drive on a highway during that time, the passenger seat must hold a driver who has held a licence for the corresponding category, or a category that includes it, for three years or more. This is a hard requirement of a Ministry of Public Security regulation; driving without such a person on board is unlawful, and the fine is RMB 20 to RMB 200.
  • Being accompanied is not the same as sitting there. In this case the passenger slept the whole way, and the court held that he had failed in his duty to warn and intervene — that is fault, and fault is paid for proportionally. The appellate court set his share at 10%.
  • Whose car it is does not decide who pays in full. The owner bears a corresponding share only where he was at fault in bringing about the damage — not joint liability, and not the whole sum.
  • The deceased was herself the party wholly at fault, and that is the crux: where the victim is at fault in the occurrence of the damage, the other party’s liability may be reduced (Civil Code Article 1173). The family asked for 70% and the court gave 10% — not because the court was soft, but because that is how the proportional rule works.
  • As a matter of principle, the RMB 300,000 personal accident policy should not have been set against the tort award (Insurance Law Article 46). The appellate court offset it using the indemnity principle, which I think is open to question; I flag it below as “doubtful”.

1. The case: a highway rear-end collision during the internship period

According to a publicly circulated oral account: a young woman surnamed Liu, who had held her licence for less than a year, drove onto a highway, sped, and rear-ended a heavy truck; she died. The traffic police found her wholly responsible. The car belonged to her boyfriend, who was in the passenger seat, asleep the whole way. After watching surveillance footage, the family took the view that he was the accompanying driver and had failed in his duty to warn and supervise, and claimed RMB 910,000, asking him to bear 70% — about RMB 660,000.

The boyfriend’s defence: I was asleep, I did nothing, I should not be liable; the car is mine, I had bought RMB 300,000 of personal accident insurance which has already been paid to the family, and that should be offset. The first-instance court found him at fault and ordered him to pay just over RMB 80,000; both sides appealed. The appellate court likewise found that he was qualified but slept the whole way and was at fault, and set the share at 10%; it further held that, the RMB 300,000 having already been paid, a further tort award would be double compensation, so under the indemnity principle he need not pay anything more.

2. What the law actually requires of a novice driver on the highway

The 12 months after a person first obtains a car or motorcycle licence category constitute the internship period for novice drivers (Article 76 of the Provisions on the Application for and Use of Motor Vehicle Driving Licenses); Article 22 of the Implementing Regulations of the Road Traffic Safety Law also requires a novice marker to be displayed at the rear of the vehicle. The highway rule is in Article 77, paragraph 2:

“A driver who drives a motor vehicle on a highway during the internship period shall be accompanied by a driver who holds a licence for the corresponding category, or a category that includes the driver’s own, and who has held it for three years or more.” (original text, excerpt)

Three requirements: the other person holds a licence for a category that corresponds to, or includes, yours; that person has held it for a full three years; and the rule governs driving on a highway as such, not merely the first time. The penalty for breach is Article 98, paragraph 1, item (2): a fine of RMB 20 to RMB 200.

The sum is trivial, but the administrative penalty is only the first layer — once something actually happens, “nobody was accompanying” and “the person accompanying did not do the job” become fault in civil compensation.

3. Where the passenger’s duty comes from: not guardianship, but fault

“Failure to fulfil the duty of accompaniment and supervision” — some reports render this as “guardianship liability”, and neither is legally accurate: the boyfriend was not a guardian; what he bears is liability for his own fault. Civil Code Article 1165, paragraph 1: “Where a person, through fault, infringes upon another person’s civil-law rights and interests and causes damage, that person shall bear tort liability.” (original text)

An omission can also constitute an infringement, provided there was a duty to act. The duty comes from two sources: the duty of accompaniment set by the regulation, whose purpose is safety, not making up the numbers; and the duty of care that comes with the role — having agreed to accompany and taken the passenger seat, he had to stop speeding, fatigue or distraction the moment he saw it, and if he could not stop it, require the car to pull into a service area and change drivers (the court’s phrase is “real-time warning and emergency intervention”). Sleeping counts as fault because a sleeping companion is almost indistinguishable from no companion at all.

The boundary needs stating: it is not that “if something happens, the passenger pays”. The family must prove that he knew or ought to have known that the driver was in the internship period, that he did not in fact perform the duty of accompaniment, and that the omission was causally linked to the damage. If the passenger is merely an ordinary passenger (a taxi, or a friend’s car where the driver left the internship period long ago), this set of duties does not exist at all.

4. The car was his — did that make him liable for all of it?

Civil Code Article 1209: “Where, by reason of lease, loan or any other circumstance, the owner or manager of a motor vehicle is not the same person as the user, and a traffic accident causes damage for which the motor vehicle side is responsible, the user of the motor vehicle shall bear liability for compensation; where the owner or manager was at fault in the occurrence of the damage, he shall bear corresponding liability for compensation.” (original text)

Article 1 of the Supreme People’s Court’s Interpretation (II) on the Application of Law in the Trial of Cases of Compensation for Damage in Road Traffic Accidents (Judicial Interpretation No. 9 [2026]), in force since 30 June this year, fleshes out the word “corresponding”: the user bears full liability; where the owner or manager is at fault, they bear it jointly only within the scope of that fault, and the total paid by all parties may not exceed the sum the victim is entitled to receive; the owner may afterwards recover from the user any amount paid beyond his own share.

One easily confused point: both provisions speak of causing damage to others. Here the person who died was the driver herself, not a third party, so strictly speaking the case does not fall within the reach of Article 1209; the finding against the boyfriend rested on his own independent fault, under Article 1165.

Then why did the family ask for 70% and the court give only 10%? The key is the deceased herself. Civil Code Article 1173: “Where the infringed person is at fault in the occurrence or aggravation of the same damage, the liability of the infringer may be reduced.” (original text) The traffic police found her wholly responsible — speeding, rear-ending, driving on a highway during the internship period; the main cause of the damage lay with her. The passenger’s failure to warn can only be a small slice, and that is where the 10% comes from.

5. Can an RMB 300,000 accident policy offset the award? A point I doubt

Insurance Law Article 46: “Where an insured person suffers an insured event such as death, disability or illness through the act of a third party, the insurer, after paying the insurance benefit to the insured or the beneficiary, is not entitled to seek recovery from the third party, but the insured or the beneficiary remains entitled to claim compensation from the third party.” (original text)

My summary: personal insurance benefits and tort compensation run in parallel in principle; it is not either-or. Life and health cannot be “made whole” with money, and a fixed-sum accident policy buys a sum insured, not an itemised list of losses, so the proposition that once you have taken the accident insurance you cannot claim again has no legal basis. The indemnity principle governs only expenses actually incurred — medical costs, funeral costs, nursing costs and the like, where you are reimbursed what you spend — and no double recovery is allowed there (Article 10 of Judicial Interpretation No. 9 [2026] takes the same approach).

Why did the appellate court rule as it did? Possibly it treated the RMB 300,000 as money the tortfeasor side had itself insured and paid out for its own benefit, and balanced the equities accordingly; or possibly it extended the indemnity principle to fixed-sum personal insurance. One would have to read the reasoning in the judgment itself; the source material only relays the outcome, so I mark this “doubtful”. Do not assume that “I have insurance” means you need not pay, and do not assume that “I have received the insurance money” means you cannot claim again — the two sums rest on different bases of claim.

6. Giving someone a free ride: does it reduce what you pay?

These cases also often raise giving a free ride (good-Samaritan ride-sharing). Civil Code Article 1217: “Where a non-commercial motor vehicle is involved in a traffic accident that causes damage to an unpaid passenger and the motor vehicle side is responsible, its liability for compensation shall be reduced, unless the user of the motor vehicle acted intentionally or with gross negligence.” (original text) Article 3 of Judicial Interpretation No. 9 [2026] further provides that where the user claims a reduction in liability for compensation, the court shall support it, except in cases of intent or gross negligence.

Note: this provision protects the good Samaritan who drives — it reduces but does not eliminate liability; and in this case it was the driver’s parents who claimed, not a passenger, so strictly speaking it does not apply. If you are injured riding in someone else’s car, the other side will certainly raise it in defence; if you give someone a lift and something happens, it is a basis for reducing liability, not for excluding it.

7. A checklist for drivers and accompanying passengers

  • Before driving on a highway during the internship period, confirm three things: the accompanying driver has held a licence for three full years, the licence category corresponds to yours or is higher, and that person is actually in the passenger seat. If any one is missing, do not go on the highway.
  • Display the novice marker; stay away from commercial passenger vehicles and do not tow a trailer; when tired, in rain or fog, or at night, pull into a service area of your own accord — do not stop in the emergency lane to change drivers.
  • The accompanying driver does not drink, does not sleep and does not scroll on a phone; watch speed and road conditions the whole way, and the moment you see speeding or drowsiness, require the driver to slow down or swap.
  • Before lending a car, the owner should check three things: whether the borrower is in the internship period, whether there is a qualified accompanying driver, and whether compulsory traffic accident insurance is in force.
  • After an accident, preserve the evidence: the dashcam’s original footage, highway entry and exit and checkpoint records, the navigation track, chat records (who proposed taking the highway, who was driving at the time), and the policies for each type of insurance.
  • Claim every head of loss: death compensation is calculated on the per capita disposable income of urban residents in the previous year at the place of the court hearing the case, over twenty years (Article 15 of the interpretation on personal injury compensation), plus funeral expenses, dependent’s living expenses and compensation for mental distress.

8. A few cautions

The facts here come from a publicly circulated oral account; I have not verified the case number, the court or the text of the judgment, and the proportions and sums follow the account as given, so they may differ from the court document. The material is also internally inconsistent on one detail: it says both that the collision happened on the highway and that it happened in a car park at speed. If the scene was in fact a service area or a car park, whether that counts as driving on a highway is itself a disputed point, and it bears directly on whether Article 77 applies.

Courts around the country are not consistent on where the accompanying driver’s duty ends or on whether insurance money can be offset; do not treat the 10% in one case as a formula. In one sentence: on the highway during the internship period, the person in the passenger seat is not there for company — the law makes him a safety officer, and from the moment he falls asleep, liability starts to accumulate.

If you or your family face questions about driving on a highway during the internship period, apportioning liability after a traffic accident, insurance claims or compensation, you are welcome to contact Wang Xin: phone 186-0113-9509, WeChat wang223040.

Quick answers

Can a novice driver legally drive on a highway in China during the internship period?
Yes, but only if accompanied by a driver who has held a licence for the corresponding category, or a category that includes it, for at least three years. Driving without such a person on board is unlawful and carries a fine of RMB 20 to RMB 200.
Why was the passenger liable when all he did was sleep?
Because sleeping is an omission. He had agreed to act as the accompanying driver and therefore had a duty to warn and intervene; a companion who sleeps is almost indistinguishable from no companion at all, so the court found fault and set his share at 10%.
Can an RMB 300,000 personal accident policy offset the compensation?
In principle no. Under Article 46 of the Insurance Law, personal insurance benefits and tort compensation run in parallel. The appellate court applied the indemnity principle to offset the sum, which in my view is open to question.

This is an English edition of Wang Xin’s original Chinese article, 实习期上高速，副驾全程在睡：女友撞车身亡，男友为什么还要赔钱？. It explains the law of the People’s Republic of China in general terms and is not legal advice for any particular case; outcomes depend on the specific facts and on how local authorities apply the rules.