[reproduced] Jiangsu court for traffic accident no responsibility for vehicle owners to the impairment loss fee

The original address:The Jiangsu court for traffic accident no responsibility for vehicle owners to the impairment loss fee judicial precedentAuthor:Shanghai Wuming lawyer blog

   A,The concept vehicle impairment loss
   Vehicle impairment losses, are generallyThe vehicle after the accident happened, its performance has been restored, but its economic value but because of accidents and reduce the(for example, traffic station every night 19:30 a car to sell a car show, appraisers need to ask in the assessment of the price of the sentence is "the vehicle has no accident" the accident vehicles value than did the accident vehicles value decreased in the transaction)
   Two, the courts at all levels in Jiangsu province have precedent
   In terms of the court of Jiangsu province has been the case for compensation, property disputes in the traffic accidentIs the vehicle depreciation expenses shall be the issue of compensation, different judges have different understanding.
  (a) in March 4, 2006, Mr. Zhang from Nanjing driving a new Accord cars to the hotel dining, the hotel staff will be the vehicle hit the hotel door pillars when parking, after Mr. Zhang went to Nanjing Gulou District People's court, ask the hotel for compensation devaluation loss. During the trial, the Drum Tower District Court commissioned the Gulou District Price Bureau Price Certification Center for the identification of the vehicle devaluation loss, this conclusion is accord car after repair of functional loss, devaluation loss is 37000 yuan. Gulou District Court in any hotel for Mr. Zhang vehicle repair devaluation loss 37000 yuan.
(two) in 2008 February, Wuxi City Lai to drive the car crashed into the fence the road center, into to the driveway, collision to Shen car, two car damage. Afterwards, the Traffic Police Department identified: full responsibility on a certain negative accident. The car without damage, even fix that Shen was very distressed. Soon, she went to court, ask Lai compensation repair fee and loss of vehicle depreciation, the specific amount to be identified. The court concluded that, Shen asked Lai a payment vehicle depreciation loss, no legal basis does not support, the verdict rejected a request a pay Lai Shen vehicle depreciation loss claim.
(three) in 2007 July, Changzhou a, a Mercedes S350 car parked in the B area of corporate governance in the garage. The night heaven downpour garage flooded, the vehicle was also inundated. The car the 4S shop repair vehicle insurance companies to pay for all the repairs, but because the vehicles soaking time longer lead circuit interior damage, 4S shop that loss of vehicle depreciation estimates 180000 yuan. Therefore a company to prosecute the Changzhou New District People's court for compensation of the vehicle devaluation loss. B reply that a maintains 180000 yuan devaluation loss no valid evidence, and the loss due to irresistible force caused by reason should not compensate the loss, the court rejected the a company litigation request. To apply to the court for the identification of a company in court, the court commissioned the Changzhou Chang Shen accounting firm limited to devalue loss were identified, Changzhou Chang Shen accounting firm Limited will not be assessed with no corresponding professional and technical conditions for. After the agent through the survey found that data access, Gulou District of Nanjing

Price Bureau Price Certification Center with identification of qualification and identifying this kind of depreciation loss experience it is to the court suggested that entrust their identification, the Court adopted the agent's opinion. The Nanjing Gulou District Price Bureau Price Certification Center assessment cognizance of the vehicle devaluation loss is 96500 yuan. The Court adopted the views of all the agents that: in July 3, 2007 the heavy rain caused the water isn't inevitable and cannot overcome not belonging to the irresistible force, the vehicle was flooded after repair but very difficult to restore to the original vehicle's performance, but also affect the service life of the vehicle, so the vehicle devaluation in fact. At the same time, adopted the Nanjing Gulou District Price Bureau Price Certification Center assessment report, the decision to support a company litigation request, ordered the B company a company vehicle depreciation compensation for loss of 96500 yuan.
(four) in 2009 October, Taicang City Deng driving small cars on the highway, with a driving small car was front left together, the occurrence of road traffic accidents, causing two car damage. The traffic police department after investigation found, Deng a negative of the accident. Afterwards, Miao spent a total of car repair costs thirteen thousand yuan, in addition, he thinks his car buying less than a year, after the accident, the market value will disparage vehicle, so Deng also damages his vehicle depreciation costs twenty thousand. Because the negotiations fail, Miao put Dengmou Taicang court. Taicang court held that, under the current law, traffic accidents caused by car damage, the damaged vehicle compensation, generally for repair of vehicle to normal state, the necessary expenses incurred, also is the common sense of the repairs. In this case, the plaintiff vehicle since the date of purchase to the occurrence of traffic accidents has been almost a year, does not belong to the car, and the damaged parts is not, the repair costs no more than the original purchase price 30%, generally can be considered, by professional repair damaged vehicles, has returned to the original use functions, therefore, the court does not support vehicle depreciation costs of the plaintiff's claim.
(five) in 2006 12, the citizens of Nanjing Chen Buick cars driving in the city within a certain area in the process of reversing, hit Wang import Toyota car right after the test, causing damage to two vehicles. The traffic accident identified by the traffic police department, responsible, Wang Chen without responsibility. Both parties to reach a mediation agreement in the traffic police department mediation: "Chen bear two car loss, two car loss should be assessed to bear the cost, according to the evaluation of price accident ends, both free." After the accident, both sides on the basis of the agreement on their car damage dealt with. Later, Wang believes that value to reduce the vehicle repair, asked Chen compensation by the case of accidents caused by the loss of vehicle depreciation 34000 yuan. Chen was not recognized, then place both contradiction. In 2007 January, Wang went to court, asked Chen Lingli to compensate for the loss of vehicle depreciation 34000. Mediation by the court of first instance verdict after invalid, Chen refuses to accept the trial court of appeal to the Nanjing intermediate people's court, the request to withdraw the first instance judgment. During the trial of the case, the Nanjing intermediate people's court presided over the mediation, agreed to pay 11500 yuan Chen Wang vehicle depreciation costs.

Six 2008 January), the citizens of Nanjing Liu driving private car on the way home and a truck collided. After identified by the traffic police department, the truck driver bear full responsibility for the accident. In the accident, the right headlight Liu Zhenpeng vehicle was damaged, water tank rupture, front bumper off. After the accident, Liu Zhenpeng appealed to the court, van insurance company for compensation Liu Zhenpeng all repair costs 30000 yuan. A year later, Liu has once again to truck drivers and insurance company to court, the defendant requested compensation for vehicle depreciation costs 20000 yuan. Court of the first instance judgment, truck driver Liu Zhenpeng vehicle depreciation costs 14000 yuan compensation.
(seven) in 2009, the citizens of Nanjing Chen driving the car is a vehicle rear end, Chen claims vehicle depreciation costs. But a Nanjing District Court of first instance has no basis in law rejected the claim.
From the above examples can be seen, in the judicial practice, the impairment loss should support for vehicles, there are mainly three kinds of differences of opinion.
First, support for vehicle impairment loss of the judges said: because of the traffic accident, the vehicle damage, although it has been repaired, but it's very hard to come back to the original vehicle service life, safety, comfort, driving performance requirements, and in automobile trading market for the traffic accident vehicle, apparently valuation than the original non accident vehicles to low. The difference between the value of the loss should belong to the category of civil law, the rights of the victims should get relief.
Second, because the vehicle just evaluate the impairment loss, and no real reflected, so there are judge advocate only occurred in the vehicle after the transaction, the vehicle of impairment losses can be reflected, so aggrieved owners only vehicle impairment loss can claim the loss actually occurs after the transaction. In the absence of transaction, the request is not supported.
Third, the main reasons for not supporting the vehicle impairment loss point lies in: first, the damaged vehicles, has been repaired, the loss compensated, and the vehicle the impairment loss is not clear, in reality not the actual reflected, as regards prices firm evaluation results, but the court hearing the case reference, not enough to identify the loss, and the loss is uncertain, as the market changes, therefore, the court should not be recognized the loss. Secondly, in the main legal basis of civil compensation of road traffic accident is "approach to road traffic accidents" in the vehicle, no impairment loss compensation provisions, so that the vehicle the impairment loss is no basis in law.
Four, the vehicle only by structural damage situations can obtain the impairment loss compensation
"General principles of civil law" and the special treatment for traffic accident civil "approach to road traffic accidents" in the vehicle the impairment loss has not stipulated. But the traffic accident is a kind of property infringement, so according to the general principles of the civil law "provisions of the second paragraph of" 117th, "damage to the state, the collective property or the property of others should be restitution or compensation for discount". In civil law theory "restitution" should include two aspects, one is the object damaged recovery process, is the subject of the two damaged

Functional prices stable, although this is hidden, but the objective existence. For the damage award, the two aspects of value reduction should belong to the real loss category, should be adjusted in the scope of law of the people's. The vehicle was damaged, the cost of the repairs must be value compensation, this no doubt. The vehicle after repair, its function could still play a role, but the price was reduced obviously, this point is the basis for the existence of the impairment loss is the amount of vehicle. Vehicles in the impairment amount according to law is confirmed by identification shall be supported. Otherwise, in the civil rights relief, will appear obvious unfairness phenomenon.
As mentioned above, the vehicle owner impairment loss without liability in traffic accident can be used as an actual loss claims in the lawsuit. In my opinion, the impairment loss should strictly control the vehicle, if the vehicle damage is not serious, after repair can completely reach the restitution, compensation for the loss of no problem, only caused structural damage internal vehicles in the traffic accident, even if the overall repair can not be completely restored to the state before the injury, only to depreciate loss (in popular terms, is the car by the wound not trauma).
Five, the compensation liability subject
The scope of liability insurance of vehicle depreciation loss does not belong to the commercial third party liability insurance, the insurance company is not the compensation subject, compensation should be the main infringement itself. The reasons are as follows: firstly, three party insurance compensation for direct losses only produce motor vehicle after insurance accident happens, the indirect loss without compensation, insurance liability insurance companies in the three party insurance insurance should be understood as only due to accidents caused by damage to the property, and no other intervening factors. According to the principle of proximate cause principle, motor vehicle transfer price, market price fluctuations of the affected vehicles, motor vehicle has not diminished value directly, the decisive factor in the accident insurance. Therefore, the impairment loss should not be used as the insurance liability "direct property loss" category.
Secondly, China Insurance Regulatory Commission "on the motor vehicle insurance third party property devaluation loss issues concerning" clearly defined "due to accidents caused by third party property (including a motor vehicle) direct damage to the property depreciation, direct damage is not third party property, but the indirect loss, this loss does not belong to the responsibility of insurance"