The 'open door kill' that causes traffic accidents by casually pushing open the car door is like a lurking ghost, constantly threatening people on the road with its suddenness and concealment. These accidents, ranging from minor property losses to serious injuries, have left victims physically and mentally exhausted due to disputes and rights struggles over "who is at fault" and "who will compensate" afterwards. According to Xinhua News Agency, on November 9th, the Supreme People's Court publicly solicited opinions on the "Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Traffic Accident Liability Dispute Cases (II) (Draft for Comments)", which directly pointed out hot and difficult issues such as "opening the door to kill", and proposed to regulate issues such as the subject of compensation liability and the scope of compensation. In the daily driving process, it is very common for people inside the car to neglect observation and rashly open the car door without seeing the outside situation, resulting in sudden collisions with others, which has become an increasingly serious problem affecting road safety. At present, there is controversy in practice regarding whether "open door killing" is the responsibility of the motor vehicle party, which can easily lead to difficulties in claims settlement. The Supreme People's Court's solicitation of opinions this time focuses on clarifying the responsibilities of all parties involved in "open door killings", allowing victims to obtain reasonable compensation to the maximum extent possible, and has guiding significance for the legal governance of "open door killings". Opening the door to kill "may seem like a small negligence while driving or riding, but behind it lies a significant safety hazard. After the "open door killing" causes casualties, due to the unclear subject of compensation liability and obstacles in insurance claims, victims often have to endure physical pain and engage in a long struggle for rights protection. For example, in practice, sometimes the driver is held primarily responsible or even fully responsible, while other times the passenger who opened the door is held primarily responsible. At the same time, insurance companies also have different judgments on the specific circumstances at the time of the accident. These difficult issues have brought numerous difficulties to victims' rights protection. This time, the Supreme People's Court intends to clarify the responsibilities of all parties through judicial interpretations, providing clear guidance for handling "open door murder" cases in accordance with the law, which is conducive to safeguarding the legitimate rights and interests of victims and warning drivers and passengers to pay attention to their safety obligations. For example, if a passenger of a motor vehicle causes damage to others while driving, and the infringed party claims that the passenger's liability belongs to the motor vehicle party, and requests the insurer who underwrites compulsory motor vehicle traffic accident liability insurance to compensate within the liability limit according to Article 1213 of the Civil Code, or the insurer who underwrites commercial third-party liability insurance for motor vehicles to compensate according to the provisions of the insurance contract, the people's court shall support it. At the same time, if the insurer who underwrites third-party liability commercial insurance for motor vehicles assumes compensation liability and seeks compensation from the passenger who has gross negligence in causing damage, the people's court shall support it. This means that victims can more conveniently claim compensation, effectively avoiding insurance claims obstacles caused by whether the responsible party is the passenger or the driver. The insurance company that undertakes third-party liability commercial insurance can also pursue compensation from the passenger who opened the car door, highlighting the concept of "whoever is at fault pays the bill" and reducing the possibility of insurance companies refusing compensation. Obviously, these measures will continuously strengthen the protection for victims. To refine the rules for governing "open door killings", clarify relevant responsibilities and compensation obligations, and unify legal application standards, it is conducive to reflecting fairness and justice in every "open door kill" accident - this is our common expectation. We hope that relevant parties can provide more practical experience and opinions during the period of soliciting opinions on the above judicial interpretations, and jointly promote the integration of good laws and good governance into social life. (New Society)