Answer: In accordance with Article 26 of the “Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Some Issues concerning the Application of Law for the Trial of Cases Involving Indemnity for Personal Injury”, the expenses for the equipment of aid for disability shall be calculated at the reasonable rate for ordinary usable equipment. In judicial practices, the equipment of aid for disability which the plaintiff requests to be provided or actually installed is always distinctively different from equipment of aid for disability which is provided by the defendant in respect of manufacturer and price. We hold that, we may know from the meaning of “ordinary usable” in the relevant judicial interpretation that the equipment of aid for disability which is under assertion for indemnity shall be indispensable to the aggrieved party, really plays a supplementary function to the aggrieved party, has the nature of resuming his ability, can maintain his basic living requirements (which helps production, resumption, and regressive public relations), and meet the stability and safety requirements. For the equipment of aid for disability which was installed before the plaintiff brings the lawsuit, the indemnity amount may be determined on the basis of his actually paid expenses; for the uninstalled equipment of aid for disability or such equipment which has been installed but needs to be replaced in future, the court shall lawfully inquire the manufacturer of the equipment of aid for disability about the price, and the price conclusion may be deemed as the basis for determining relevant indemnity amount after lawful cross-examination of the evidence.

基于1个网页-相关网页