[case]

Xiao Li is a Shanghai college research three students. In the evening of March 9, 2011, a company of Li of graduation practice, and other colleagues in the completion of tasks assigned by the company after the trip, travelling company loan business car to return to Shanghai from Suzhou. The road, the vehicle rear tire suddenly, the vehicle out of control and crashed into a guardrail, Li was heavy thrown out of the car. They tried to save, but Xiao Li still because of his injuries rescue invalid death.

After the incident, Suzhou local Che Kwun of vehicle accidents make appraisal: the car direction, brake parts connected complete, right rear tire driving tire. Before long, made of the accident the traffic police responsibility: vehicle right rear tire is running out, accident, Li sat install belt car seat, not according to the prescribed safety belt caused by the death, but the fault is not the cause of the accident fault, so that the accident of a traffic accident accident, the parties are not negative the responsibility for the accident.

After investigation, commercial vehicle responsible for the day shuttle Li is practice unit to Shanghai some car rental companies borrowed, but the car is not in fact a car rental company, but the car rental company to paid rental car with driver borrowed to Mr car. The day of the week is the driver Master Mr. Zhang to 160 yuan reward to find temporary.

[Trial.

Xiao Li's parents believe that the parties to the accident have not shirk responsibility, so will the accident vehicle driver weeks teacher, Mr car, car rental companies and car insurance company to court, the total more than 73 yuan compensation request.

In the trial, four of the defendants that they should not bear the responsibility for the accident. Mr. Zhou said the driver, just accept Mr car hire and driving the vehicle, the accident is accident. Mr car argue that, he and Mr. Zhou is a friend, so the car free of charge to lend its use, therefore it is not their responsibility. Car rental companies think, Li accident belongs to business trip, should be identified as work-related injuries. The insurance company said, the personnel on the car is not in the cross strong insurance coverage.

The case after a trial, after the second trial, the court verdict Mr car for Xiao Li's parents 49 yuan, car rental companies to assume joint responsibility for compensation.

The court thinks, engaged in highly dangerous operation carrier shall assume civil liability without fault. Xiao Li in the accident was thrown out of the car fell dead, although the traffic police department said that the accident is an accident, for all the traffic accidents are no responsibility, but the carrier shall bear the liability of compensation.

The court thinks, Li ride under the nominal rental company the carrier vehicle, but in fact the company related business to undertake the transfer to the car advocate sir, as the actual carrier is Mr car shall bear the liability for compensation, and the company shall bear joint and several liability. As for the driver, because the establishment of employment relationship between the owners, so do not respond to acts of their duties shall bear the responsibility for compensation. And the victim Li is the personnel on the car, do not belong to the cross strong insurance coverage, the insurance company shall not cross strong insurance range shall bear the responsibility.