Three, according to the traffic accident to deal with the existing laws and regulations, linked units should not bear joint and several liability for civil compensation

   First of all, China's "general principles of civil law" 119th article: "a citizen's person causing physical injury, shall compensate for the medical expenses, lost income, reduce disability allowance for daily life; cause of death, and shall pay the funeral expenses, the dependents of the necessary living expenses", the supreme people's the Court promulgated December 4, 2003 "on the trial of personal injury compensation case applicable legal interpretation" the first stipulation: "due to the life, health, body damage suffered, the right to compensation prosecution request compensation for property losses and damages, the people's court shall accept the case". May 1, 2004 implementation of the "people's Republic of China Road Traffic Safety Law" stipulates that the seventy-fourth ": damages to a traffic accident dispute, may request the traffic control department of the public security organ mediation the parties, may also file a civil lawsuit directly to the people's court".  

   But from the legal provisions can be seen, no vehicle clearly traffic accidents linked units should assume what responsibility, how to undertake. The author noted that Anhui Province Higher People's court has set a "certain opinions" on hearing damage compensation cases, in the comments to Article twenty-seventh (5) clearly states: "anchored in the private motor vehicle unit and causes damage to others, the owner of the vehicle shall bear civil liability, it shall bear joint and several liability". The author believes that this provision is not only valid explanation, no legal effect, contrary to the fault principle and civil damage compensation. Because of the Supreme People's court in 1987 March made "on the local people's courts at all levels should not formulate replied" judicial interpretation of the provisions of the documents, clearly pointed out, with the judicial interpretation of the documents, local people's courts at all levels should not make.

   Four, from the current legal theory, linked units nor shall bear joint and several liability for civil compensation

    The law has two kinds of theories on the traffic accident at present: a theory is a dangerous liability, that is generated for these dangerous or hazardous activities of infringement, should by the operator dangerous ruler or dangerous activities liable; another theory is the compensation responsibility, but from the people can gain the law of Rome "dangerous" this method is the development of, let people who pursue their own interests at the same time burden the loss. To determine the main responsibility for vehicle damage from dangerous liability and compensation liability, is to grasp the "operation domination" and "operation benefit" two standards. The so-called "operation domination", usually refers to the disposal pipe leading vehicle running status in fact. And the so-called "operation interests", generally considered to be born because of the benefit of running. That is to say, whether a person or a unit is the main responsibility for compensation for the damage to the vehicle, from whether to ascertain the vehicle running on the fact in the dominant management status and whether from the motor vehicle operation in two aspects of interest.

   Five, from our country at present a large number of judicial interpretation, the vehicle linked units shall not bear joint and several liability for civil compensation

In recent years, the Supreme Court of China has formulated a traffic accident to deal with judicial interpretation, the author thinks, the judicial interpretation, has been gradually by the theory of law to deal with traffic accident responsibility.

(1) Official Reply of the Supreme People's court "about the stolen motor vehicle accident who is liable for damages problem" (Interpretation 1999 No. thirteenth): "provisions of the motor vehicles using theft, cause material losses of victims, the party shall be liable for damages in accordance with the law, all the stolen motor vehicle not be liable for the damage the liability for compensation". In this case, the judicial interpretation of the Supreme People's court breakthrough "provisions of the road traffic accident treatment measures", "the name of the owner" is all the range of restrictive interpretation, has ruled out the possibility that this kind of "nominal owner" responsibility, because of the "name of owner" of stolen motor vehicles do not enjoy the "operation domination" also do not enjoy the "operation interests". Therefore, from the provisions of the linked units in such cases is not responsible for the.

(2), the Supreme People's court "about the purchase of people use installment purchases of vehicles in the transport because of property losses caused by traffic accidents in maintaining vehicle ownership of approval shall not bear civil liability" (Interpretation 2000 No. thirty-eighth) regulations, "take the installment purchase a car, a seller in the purchaser paid car keep a vehicle ownership, the purchaser in its own name and to enter into a contract of carriage of goods and the use of the car transport, due to traffic accidents caused by the loss of property of others, the Seller shall not bear civil liability". In this kind of situation, because the vehicle and operation are in control of the purchaser, therefore, keep a seller of vehicle ownership is not liable, affiliated to this situation also does not undertake the responsibility.

(3), the Supreme People's Court (2001) and a No. thirty-second "purchase a car is not about serial transfer procedures for the original owners of motor vehicle traffic accidents responsibility to reply" specified in the purchase a car, a not for transfer procedures, as vehicles have been delivered, the original owner can't control the car operations, also cannot benefit from the vehicle operation, it is not the original owners deal with motor vehicle traffic accidents responsibility. Also do not assume responsibility linked units.

(4), November 8, 2001, the Supreme People's Court on the actual owners reply hit and its affiliated units should bear the responsibility (2001) No. twenty-third people he explained: the case of the affiliated enterprise from the affiliated vehicles in operation made interest, therefore should bear civil liability to an appropriate extent".

   The above regulations are adopted "operation domination" and "operation interests" of this theory and development, and has fully demonstrated the feasibility of the theory.