Determination of serial accident related personnel civil liability by car (path loss case 3)

The cases of compensation for equal v. Zhang Liang Wong's personal injury in road traffic accidents
(that serial accident relevant personnel civil liability by car)

(a) first
1 judgments Name: Shanghai City Nanhui District People's Court (2008) meeting the people of a (min) at the beginning of the word no. 4104th civil judgment.
2 cases: dispute on road traffic accident compensation for personal injury.
The 3 parties
Plaintiff: Huang Deping.
Plaintiff: Dong Weihong.
Attorney: Yuan Shouping, lawyer of Shanghai good.
Defendant: Zhang Liang.
Defendant: Lu Chunhui.
Defendant: Hu chao.
Attorney: Yao Kuangrong, lawyer of Shanghai yongle.
The 4 trial: a review.
5 judicial organs and the judicial organization
Judicial organs: Shanghai City Nanhui District People's court.
The collegiate group: judge: Xu Genhua; Acting judge: Tan Wei Feng; people's jury: week falconer.
Time: November 20, 2008 6.
(two) the plea that
The 1 plaintiffs
November 14, 2007, the defendant Zhang Liang unlicensed driving a car accident, caused the plaintiff's son Huang Jun died, Zhang Liang negative accident responsibility. The defendant Lu Chunhui Department of vehicle owners, Lu Chunhui borrow the car to the defendant Hu Chao, Hu Chao with peers and let Zhang Liang drive, so the three defendants shall bear joint and several liability. Therefore, the request of the ruling two defendants joint compensation for medical expenses, nursing fees 650 yuan 125 156.49 yuan, 16262 yuan of funeral expenses, death compensation of 472460 yuan, 100000 yuan for the loss of spirit.
The 2 defendants argued that
The defendant Zhang Liang argued: the basic facts and the responsibility of traffic accidents that have no objection. The defendant Hu Chaoming knows there is no driver's license, but still active to drive, so Hu Chao also have the responsibility; the defendant Lu Chunhui should not take car loans to Hu Chao, if not lend it an accident does not occur, and Lu Chunhui did not know Hu Chao drove out to do what, so Lu Chunhui also have the responsibility; Huang Jun know its no driver's license, but still aboard, it also has the responsibility to Huang Jun. Therefore, should share the liability by the parties.
The defendant Lu Chunhui argued that: the defendant Zhang Liang and the victim Huang Jun do not know, the car back to the defendant Hu Chao is legitimate, traffic accidents, which is not in the car. Therefore, the Yellow army death without fault, should not assume liability to pay compensation.
The defendant Hu Chao argued: it is not the driver of a vehicle, is also not the owner, and does not take the responsibility of traffic accident; before the accident, does not know the defendant Zhang Liang does not have a driver's license, because Zhang Liang volunteered to drive, and Zhang Liang before also drive a car, it mistakenly think that Zhang Liang has the driver license, so it will be car to Zhang Liang driving. Therefore, the Yellow army death without fault, should not assume liability to pay compensation.
(three) the facts and evidence
Shanghai Nanhui District People's court open trial found: the defendant Lu Chunhui is all grades for Shanghai C-B8123 Santana, Lu Chunhui accused Hu Chao and friends; Hu Chao and the defendant Zhang Liang Department of friends; Huang Jun Hu Chao, Zhang Liangjun understanding the plaintiff Huang Deping, the son of Dong Weihong (born February 15, 1990, non agriculture households); Lu Chunhui don't know Zhang Liang, Huang Jun. In November 13, 2007, Lu Chunhui will be the vehicle back to Hu Chao. On November 14, 2007, Hu Chao driving the car to meet Zhang Liang Zhang Liang, Zhang Liang on the train by Zhang Liang driving the car, two people prepare to Huinan Town, Nanhui district. Meet Huang Jun Zhang Liang driving the car to Nanhui District Luchaogang Town, because the Yellow army ready to Huinan Town, so Huang Jun into the car, continued by Zhang Liang driving the car, with three car to the town. The same day at thirteen five pm, when the vehicle is travelling from south to north to Nanhui District Chuannanfeng highway dazhihe Bridge South 1 000 meters, because the direction of out of control, vehicle impact on the west side of the road trees and poles at the Bank of the river in the west of the highway, causing damage to the vehicle, Hu Chao injured, Huang Jun. After the accident, Huang Jun was sent to Nanhui District Central Hospital, Shanghai Renji Hospital, but due to traffic accidents caused by severe craniocerebral injury and other injury, after the rescue invalid, died in November 27, 2007. In December 11, 2007, the Shanghai Municipal Public Security Bureau Nanhui branch traffic police department issued the "traffic accident", found the defendant Zhang Liang without a motor vehicle driving license to drive a motor vehicle, driving not ensure safety, belong to illegal behavior, full responsibility for the traffic accident, Hu Chao, Huang Jun and no accidents illegal acts have a causal relationship, not negative accident responsibility. In April 21, 2008, the Academy of criminal judgment, judge Zhang Liang violation of the traffic regulations, motor vehicle driving license, make traffic accident crime, sentenced to two years in prison. Zhang Liang is now in jail. After the accident, Hu Chao has paid for the plaintiff 30 000 element.
The facts mentioned above have the following evidence:
Issue 1 of Shanghai City Public Security Bureau Nanhui branch traffic police detachment of the "traffic accident" that traffic accident, the basic situation and that the responsibility for the accident.
2 Shanghai City Nanhui District People's Court (2008) merged punishment early word number 218th criminal judgments, to prove that the defendant Zhang Liang was sentenced to a punishment for the crime of traffic accident cases.
3 Central Hospital of Shanghai Nanhui District and Shanghai Renji Hospital medical history, medical fee invoice, certificate rescue therapy after the injury victim Huang Jun.
4 of the original, the defendant's court statement etc..
(four) the law grounds
Shanghai Nanhui District People's court held that the defendant Zhang Liang: violation of traffic regulations, deliberately non motor vehicle driving license and driving a motor vehicle to the traffic accident, has great fault, and not to ensure the safety of driving, the illegal and criminal behavior is the direct reason to cause damage, which is caused by traffic accidents only responsibility people, therefore, should bear the corresponding liability. The defendant Lu Chunhui is the owner of the vehicle, the vehicle will not affect the safe operation of quality defects or hazards lent to the accused Hu Chao is driving qualification, the act was not illegal, and its lending behavior and traffic accidents doesn't exist causal relationship, did not get the benefits from the lending behavior therefore, do not assume liability to pay compensation. The defendant Hu Chao and Zhang Liang friends for many years, knows or should know that Zhang Liang does not have a driver's license. The use of vehicles without the owner Lu Chunhui agreed, to give the vehicle to drive Zhang Liang, so that Zhang Liang Hu Chao for driving without a license behavior has a certain fault, should bear the corresponding liability. But in view of Hu Chao, Zhang Liang on the injury consequence no joint intent or negligence, and Zhang Liang Hu Chao's behavior is the damage has occurred in the indirect binding consequences, therefore, Hu Chao only take responsibility for your actions, without having to assume joint responsibility for compensation. The victim and the defendant Hu Chao, Zhang Liang, Huang Jun based on acquaintance, because of occasional and free ride vehicles, according to the common sense of life, Huang Jun can think the passenger vehicle is safe, and it has not examined whether Zhang Liang has the quality of vehicle driving, whether it meets the quality standards of safe operation and other obligations, the Yellow army the consequences of damage occurs without fault, should not assume liability.
(five) a verdict
Shanghai Nanhui District People's court in accordance with the second paragraph of "general principles of civil law" 106th,Interpretation of the Supreme People's court "on certain issues concerning the application of law in the trial of personal injury compensation case"ArticleArticle threeSecond, No.Article seventeenThe first paragraph, third paragraph,On whether the people's courts handle criminal cases the victim filed a civil damages the spirit of the Supreme People's court ""Regulations, make the following decisions:
The 1 defendant Zhang Liang shall compensate the plaintiff Huang Deping, Dong Weihong in this case because of accidents caused by the funeral expenses, death compensation and reasonable loss of 614528.49 yuan in the 553 075. 64 yuan, to the entry into force of this decision within 10 days from the date of its;
The 2 defendant Hu Chao shall compensate the plaintiff Huang Deping, Dong Weihong in this case because of accidents caused by reasonable loss of 614528.49 yuan in the 61 452. 85 yuan, deduct 30000 yuan has been paid, it shall pay 31452.85 yuan, to the entry into force of this decision within 10 days from the date of its;
3 rejected the plaintiff Huang Deping, Dong Weihong for the rest of the claim.
The case acceptance fee of 10945 yuan (by the Huang Deping, Dong Weihong pay 5472.50 yuan), the plaintiff Huang Deping, Dong Weihong burden of 1 000 element, the 8 951 element by the defendant Zhang Liang burden, Hu Chao burden 994 yuan, the defendant Zhang Liang, Hu Chao should be within 7 days of the school to pay their legal fees into effect of the judgment day.
(six) interpretation
　　In this case the Department with the typical serial borrowing for motor vehicle traffic accidents caused by the dispute over tort liability, both parties to the vehicle owner's responsibility, the vehicle first use human responsibility, the vehicle driver (second borrowers) of liability issues very controversial. This should be the legal basis, basic principles of motor vehicles with the tort liability of the liability and the relevant legal provisions, determine.
1Finds all responsibility serial borrow the car accident when the vehicle
"Road traffic accident treatment measures"ArticleArticle thirty-oneThe vehicle owner's responsibility to advance, but with the "The traffic safety law of the people's Republic of China on roadThe implementation of the above provisions ", was terminated by. "Road Traffic Safety Law"ArticleArticle seventy-sixThe motor vehicle, motor vehicle and non motor vehicle traffic accident responsibility assignment, pedestrians, but not explicitly "the division of responsibilities within the motor vehicle party". In a series of borrowing the car accident, identified as "one of the motor vehicle party" the vehicle owner's responsibility, we should clearly define the basis of imputation principle of its application on the combination of operation control and operation income determination.
1.On the imputation principles of vehicle all people.
"The general principles of the civil law"ArticleArticle one hundred and twenty-three, "Road Traffic Safety Law"ArticleArticle seventy-sixNo fault liability principle established the traffic accident compensation for damage, but in accordance with the law, it is only for a motor vehicle driving imputation methods, and can not understand in use vehicle accident when the vehicle owner also applies the principle of imputation. And, according to the "The general principles of the civil law"ArticleArticle one hundred and sixThe provisions of third, apply the principle of no fault liability by law must stipulate special provisions in advance, no laws, it can not be applied. So, no clear provisions in the law, the vehicle owner should not apply the principle of non fault liability.
Some scholars have pointed out, the liability of the negative damage, not because the damage, but because of negligence, the truth is like the chemistry of the principle, make a candle burn, not the light, but the oxygen general simple to understand. First, free will. Responsible for everyone dealing with personal behavior is controlled by the free will of the damage caused by the consequences, even though the result is not a benefit. The principle of fault liability is the principle of autonomy of will extend in the tort law logic. Second, moral sense. One is their own fault for the damage, because the fault behavior has to be criticized morally, which is also the requirement of justice. Third, personal freedom and social security. Let everyone do their duty, responsible for the fault of their own behavior, can be very good harmonic method "personal freedom" and "social security" the two basic value. Therefore, the principle of fault liability is the basic principle of imputation of civil liability. Based on the above analysis,In the law has no clear stipulation, let the vehicle owner bear fault liability and the sufficient theoretical basis for the case, the vehicle owner should apply the principle of fault liability, namely the vehicle loan process if there is a fault, it shall bear civil liability corresponding to the extent of its fault.
In combination with the judicial practice, if there are several scenarios, and that the vehicle owner lent during vehicle fault exist:1) everyone knows or ought to know that the motor vehicle loan has defects, and the defects of road traffic accident; 2) the borrower does not have the corresponding driving qualification; 3) according to the circumstances the borrower can not drive a motor vehicle.
2.Vehicle owner to control the operation of the vehicle and operating income.
Determination of vehicle owner's responsibility to be considered in addition to the no fault must be considered disposable vehicle running and operating income. First of all, the vehicle as a highly dangerous traffic tools, pose a security threat to the surrounding environment, so, vehicle dominator control vehicle itself is made possible dangers to persons, property rights and interests of damage, and they in these risk has the most clear, most have the ability prevention, control the risk, so they are as open and controls the sources of danger, bear the responsibility to dangerous consequences. In a series of borrowing the car accident, after the vehicle will all vehicles lent out, lost to the vehicles movement control, which is no longer open and control risk source, according to the law should not therefore assume corresponding responsibility. Secondly, to enjoy the benefit risk based on principles, all motor vehicles from the lending behavior in economic interests, it shall bear the corresponding responsibility. With the increasing popularity of motor vehicles, the vehicle from friends, acquaintances on loan in daily life things have occurred, for "interest" should be limited to economic interests, should not include human interests.
To sum up,In a series of borrowing the car accident, if the vehicle all people still in fact dominates the lending vehicles or from the lending behavior gained economic benefits, no fault even in lending, also responsible for accident damage are jointly and severally liable.If its no longer dominates the vehicle loan, also did not benefit from the lending behavior, but in lending have fault, it shall bear the liability for fault and its corresponding(the specific reasons in the following first borrower liability cognizance are discussed).
In this case,Motor vehicle owner Lu Chunhui will not affect the safe operation of quality defects or hidden danger lent to the defendant Hu Chao with motor vehicle driving performance, fault does not exist in the lending behavior; after the vehicle loan, it is no longer dominates the vehicle, also did not benefit from the lending behavior, so it is very difficult identify the lending behavior has a causal relationship between the accident, it shall not be liable for damages.
2Serial borrow the car accident that first borrower liability
In a series of borrowing the car accident that relevant personnel responsibility, first the borrower (i.e. second lenders) in vehicle all people (namely the first lender) the same location, soAs for vehicle owner responsibility analysis is fully applicable to the first use of man. If the first borrow still dominates the vehicle lending or the benefits obtained from subtenancy, no fault even in Lent, it still dealing with accident damage are jointly and severally liable. If its no longer dominates the vehicle loan, also did not benefit from the lending behavior, but in the lent to have fault, the behavior of the fault behavior and the driver of the vehicle are combined, with "Several issues concerning the application of law in the trial of personal injury compensation case interpretation"ArticleArticle threeThe second paragraph of "more than two people have no joint intent or negligence, but separately commit several acts indirectly with the same damage" situation, it should bear the liability for fault and the degree of.
Object to this view, combined with the behavior of fault behavior and the vehicle driver lenders, in accordance with "Several issues concerning the application of law in the trial of personal injury compensation case interpretation"ArticleArticle threeThe provisions of the first paragraph of the "no joint intent, joint negligence, but the infringement occurred directly with the same damage", it should be the driver of a vehicle shall bear joint and several liability together. The source of the differences in "direct combination" and "indirect combined with different understanding of the connotation of". Refers to a combination of direct is a behavior is a fortuitous combination in a piece, but with very close to degree, harm consequence, their causes and harm has been the site cannot be distinguished, thus the number of behavior setting for a common injury act together to produce the victim damage. The indirect binding refers to the behavior is accidental combination of multiple causes, but the damage results are not all directly or necessarily lead to result in damage behavior. Create conditions have some behavior or just another act or directly or will inevitably lead to damage results, which does not of itself may not directly or will cause damage results. According to the above understanding, in a borrowed car accident, the fault behavior and the behavior of lenders to lend the vehicle at the time of the accident together, if only the lending of wrongdoing will not directly or will inevitably lead to damage, the fault behavior only creates conditions for the direct or will inevitably lead to damage the consequences of the accident, the lending behavior between the faulty behavior and vehicle's driver is the indirect binding, lenders should bear fault liability by shares.
In this case,The defendant Hu Chao although not from the vehicle loans benefit to the defendant Zhang Liang, vehicles will lend no longer dominates the vehicle, but the years and Zhang Liang friend, knew or should have known that Zhang Liang does not have a driver's license, in this case is still easy car to Zhang Liang driving, it can be found that Hu Chao for Zhang Liang undocumented driving behavior has a certain fault, shall bear civil liability for compensation.But Hu Chao's loan behavior just for the Zhang Liang acts directly or will inevitably lead to damage to create the conditions, if only Hu Chao lent the behavior and not directly or will lead to damage, so Hu Chao the plaintiff should bear the losses and their degree of fault corresponding liability by shares.
3Serial borrow the car accident when the vehicle that the driver responsibility
"Road Traffic Safety Law"ArticleArticle seventy-sixThe motor vehicle, motor vehicle and non motor vehicle drivers, pedestrians, traffic accidents among "motor vehicle party" responsibility ", but there is no clear division of responsibilities within the vehicle side", also no clear division of bicycle accident accident responsibility. Based on the above analysis, in a borrowed car accident at,The first "motor vehicle party" shall be limited to the motor vehicle driver. Secondly, the bike accident occurred, find responsible person vehicle driving can apply the principle of fault liability.The principle of liability without fault is with the development of modern capitalist industrial revolution and industrial disasters and accidents occur frequently, only rely on the original fault responsibility principle to the victim in order to remedy situations, the fault presumption and burden of proof development and. It is required by law to make clear rules, otherwise not applicable. "Road Traffic Safety Law"ArticleArticle seventy-sixThe bike accident responsibility identification does not specify, in this case, the bike accident in the driver to apply the principle of liability without fault the lack of legal basis. In addition, the fault liability is the basic principle of imputation of the civil law in China, has a profound theoretical basis, is widely used in the trial practice, so in the event of a bicycle accident, the driver of the vehicle can be applied to the fault liability principle. The driver of the vehicle to the traffic accident if there is fault, shall bear corresponding responsibility for compensation, if does not have fault, it should not bear the responsibility.
In this case,The defendant Zhang Liangming know their failure to obtain a qualification is still driving a motor vehicle accident occurred, the case with serious fault, and the driving is not safe, the behavior is the direct reason to cause damage, it shall bear the liability for compensation of main.
(Shanghai City Nanhui District People's court Tan Weifeng Meng Gaofei)