To drive the motor vehicle traffic accident after the others whether the owners responsibility

Authors: Li Zhengwen Release date: 2009-09-16 10:25:46

   In the traffic accident caused by the criminal supplementary civil compensation cases, determine the subject of liability is often a very difficult and complex problem. The reason is complicated, because the traffic is not necessarily the only responsible person, the vehicle is in the insurance, the driver of a vehicle is a vehicle owner, manager, will influence the compensation subject. In addition, in the process of vehicle, often there is a vehicle of affiliation, contracting, leasing, borrowing, the employment relationship; and the name of the owner and the actual owner for serial purchase a car, subcontract behavior as a result of inconsistent and the vehicle theft or unauthorized use of the case, This is not the only one., resulting in the procedure and the entity to determine the subject liability case is difficult in the case of. In practice, the supplementary civil case more or less column and the nature of liability issues, not only in the inner court of first instance often controversial, there are different views between the upper and the lower court. To sum up, the author is to drive the other motor vehicle accident how to determine the liability subject is discussed.
    One, to drive the other vehicles responsibility subjects of traffic accident caused by
   The so-called refers to drive, without the consent of the owner of the vehicle or the actual management, or driving others vehicle behavior. So, to drive the other vehicle traffic accident, whether all the people or manager shall bear civil liability for compensation, generally have the following views: the first view, to drive the vehicle in addition to others in the family to use and has certain employment relations of unauthorized use of the other people, without the consent of the owner of vehicle unauthorized use of someone else all vehicles, except outside the malicious subjective, objective and car theft are similar, and therefore should be with the car (and all the stolen vehicle fault) caused by traffic accidents is the same gauge is 1; the second view, civil liability for motor vehicles in road traffic accidents, bear in accordance with the following provisions; (a) the driver is the vehicle owner, manager, borne by the driver; (two) by the vehicle owner, manager authorized driving of vehicles, the vehicle by the driver or owner, manager shall bear; (three) without the owner of the vehicle, the person authorized to drive a motor vehicle management, borne by the driver; (four) the driver and the vehicle owner, manager, motor vehicle accident liability burden already have A written agreement, the agreement of 2; the third view, the existence of the employment relationship to driving, such as employees to drive the employer's vehicle, company staff to drive the company car case, company officers or employees subjective belong to drive, but the vehicle owner or custodian still cannot avoid the compensation liability. Officers or employees of a company should be and the vehicle owner or custodian shall assume joint and several liability. But the servants of third people outside the unauthorized driving motor vehicle traffic accidents, the vehicle owner or custodian unless there is management flaw, otherwise does not assume liability to pay compensation of 3; the fourth view, employee third people outside the unauthorized driving motor vehicle traffic accidents, because the owner of the vehicle or the actual management of the vehicle is out of control, and the driver is driving a vehicle without their consent, even driving motor behavior does not know to which, in this case all the requirements or the actual management responsibility obviously unreasonable, illegimate also. In this case, the owner of the vehicle or the actual management people do not bear the responsibility for compensation. However, if the owner of the vehicle or the actual management of a major flaw in the management of vehicles, the vehicle owner or manager and to drive the people should be the subject of civil liability of 4.
   The author believes that, in determining the traffic accident compensation liability subject, first of all should refer to the two international standard to determine the main responsibility: motor vehicle operation control and operation benefit attribution. The disposition right of running, who on the vehicle running has the right to dominate and control. This command and control including control direct, realistic, including control potential, abstract; the operation benefit attribution, namely who benefit from the vehicle running. This benefit can be obtained directly benefit by motor vehicle operation, including the interests of indirect benefits and psychological feelings based on factors, such as the spiritual satisfaction, happiness, harmonious interpersonal relationship. The foreign theory and case called judge subject of compensation in traffic accident "two yuan" 5. Secondly, to drive the other motor behavior, namely for motor vehicle theft behavior, if the circumstances are serious, is the use of theft, behavior and vehicle theft behavior is to drive the vehicle only others subjective purpose is different, the objective behavior has homogeneity. The Supreme People's court "about a number of issues of specific application of law in the trial of cases of theft in the interpretation of" Twelfth paragraph fourth: to practice driving, recreation and other purposes, many steal a motor vehicle, and the vehicle lost, convicted and punished as theft; occasionally drives a motor vehicle, if the circumstances are minor, can not be considered a crime. From the point of view, China's criminal law practice of stealing the car theft theft holding limited recognition attitude, that is for the purpose of illegal use of others, to drive the vehicle behavior, if the circumstances are serious, shall be punished according to the crime of theft. Foreign criminal law and China's Hong Kong and Macao criminal legislation has also taken a single charge method of using theft shall be investigated for criminal responsibility. The penal code of Canada, Malaysia, India and other countries will breach of trust crime, used without consent of motor vehicles or vessels, the crime of breach of trust as embezzlement property 6. Thus, according to the theory of "similar cases treated in the same way" regulation, the civil compensation to driving motor vehicle traffic accidents, the relevant provisions approved can motor vehicle accidents by the Supreme People's court "about the stolen after the who bear the liability for damages" the spirit to be processing.
   To sum up, the author thinks, servant outside the third people without the owner of the vehicle or the actual management's consent, unauthorized driving motor vehicle traffic accidents, motor vehicle accident should refer to the Supreme People's court "about the stolen after the who bear the liability for damages" batch complex related spirit, namely the principle by unauthorized driver to bear the responsibility, no responsibility for all motor vehicles or actual management. Investigate its reason, the author thinks that, in any case of driving, regardless of all motor vehicles or in the actual management of the per capita to drive there is no way of knowing, the vehicle is out of control, not to mention the benefit from running vehicle. According to the traffic accident damage compensate responsibility main body "the two element" theory, the vehicle owner or manager should not bear the responsibility. But if the owner of the vehicle or the actual management of a major flaw in the management of vehicles, the vehicle owner or management personnel shall bear the corresponding compensation liability of fault.
    In two, employee third person except to drive the circumstances, if the owner of the vehicle or the actual management because of mismanagement and bear the responsibility for compensation if, then the responsibility is the responsibility of compensation, the procedure is not necessary joint action. If the obligee to compensation only charged the driver, you should not add the owner of the vehicle or the actual management as joint defendants
   There are views that, in the above to drive the circumstances, if the owner of the vehicle or the actual management of motor vehicle management, and to drive the people shall be jointly and severally liable. If the obligee to compensation only charged the driver, the people's court shall add the owner of the vehicle or the actual management for the co defendant, if the obligee to compensation to non prosecution of all motor vehicles or the actual management of people, the people's court to deal with the right to compensation made interpretation. The author of the opinion cannot agree. The author thinks, according to the interpretation of the Supreme People's court "on certain issues concerning the application of law in the trial of personal injury compensation case" (hereinafter referred to as the "interpretation"), "general principles of civil law", "general principles of civil law opinions", combined with the theory of civil law of our country tradition, the common tort can be divided into three kinds: 1, common tort (also known as the narrow sense of joint torts or real joint tort, joint dangerous act); 2 (also called quasi joint tort); 3, abetting, helping the joint act of tort. Although with the new "Holland civil code" to the gang liability provisions, more consistent view in civil law theory that a gang of liability also belongs to the common types of violations of the code of civil law, expert proposal draft of China has stipulated the gang responsibility, but because of China's current legislation and judicial interpretation were not made provisions, here is no longer discuss. To sum up, in the authorization to driving type accident case infringement obviously do not belong to the common tort, so there is no room for the "interpretation" of article fifth, shall apply the "interpretation" of article sixth, the people's court does not exist on the basis of the provisions of the joint tort litigation parties and make additional interpretation problem.
   According to the "Regulations" in the interpretation of article sixth, to drive the occurred accident case, the owner of the vehicle or the actual manager if there are significant flaws in management and liability, the liability nature obviously does not belong to the common tort liability category, the vehicle due to mismanagement and bear the responsibility for compensation of all people or the actual management actually belongs to the category of security obligations. Therefore, even if the owner of the vehicle or the actual management of violation of security obligation and has fault, the liability should be the responsibility of compensation.
   In the authorization to driving others vehicle accident caused by the supplementary civil compensation litigation, if the obligee to compensation against the motor vehicle owner or the actual management, then the court should implement additional infringement to drive people to participate in the litigation as a joint defendant. The question now is, the right to compensation has been sued infringement behavior to the driver, the court has no necessary additional vehicle owner or the manager to participate in the proceedings. There are views that, if the victim is the damage was suing to enforce injuring behavior, the people's court need not additional security breach of duty as joint defendants. Because, the person directly responsible for the direct implementation of injuring behavior itself is the damage and the final responsible person, it shall be liable for all. As can be determined, additional security obligations as joint defendants are not necessary, two is the system objective and the characteristics and necessary joint action is inconsistent. The fundamental of the unreal joint liability is different from the joint and several liability is based on the causes of different. The implementation of direct injuring behavior and the safety and security obligations in violation of people do not have the common meaning contact, two kinds of behavior is not directly binds to cause damage to the victim. Therefore do not distinguish between the litigant to the "additional" absolute, it erases the distinction of unreal joint liability and joint liability. If the implementation of harm behavior finally unable to bear the liability for compensation (all or part), the victim can in order to protect the safety guarantee obligation the person neglect safety obligations and causes for the damage, to the people's court shall bring a lawsuit. Because "the reason" the achievement of a cause of action should be different.
   To sum up, the author thinks, servant outside the third people to drive the other vehicle accident caused by the supplementary civil compensation does not belong to the nature of joint tort compensation, the victim has directly charged with driving conditions, the people's court should not add other security obligations to participate in the proceedings.