Vehicle depreciation loss of traffic accidents

Meng Depo Hersey Heon Wang Peng

 In February 5, 2012, Zheng driving modern car rear end to Wang driving Skoda car tail, resulting in two damaged the car accident. After the accident, identified by the traffic police department, Zheng Wang full responsibility, no responsibility. Later, Wang Zheng and insured an insurance company to court, asked two defendants to pay compensation of the vehicle repair costs 17000 yuan, transportation costs 1000 yuan, and Skoda car purchase only one month (bought in January 4, 2012) is a serious traffic accident, asked two defendants to pay compensation of the vehicle devaluation loss 22000 yuan. In the lawsuit, authorized by the people's court appraisal institution assessment, identification of Skoda car physical depreciation for 16000 yuan. The defendant zhengmou argued: their insurance is compulsory insurance and third party liability insurance, reasonable losses shall be borne by the insurance company to compensate the plaintiff; the insurance company that: willing to compensate the plaintiff loss in insurance limits, but the loss of vehicle depreciation is the indirect loss, bear the losses are not.

 The focus of this controversy lies in: on the plaintiff Wang litigation request loss of vehicle depreciation should support? The author thinks, the plaintiff Wang Skoda cars purchased in January 4, 2012 February 5th, a traffic accident, the car has been repaired, but the value of the vehicle has the actual meaning of depreciation after the accident. Devaluation loss is due to the direct cause of traffic accident, the defendant zhengmou shall bear the corresponding compensation liability. The Zheng in the insurance companies, the compensation shall be borne by the insurance company to assume. The reasons are as follows:

 Firstly, according to the 117th general principles of civil law, property law and tort law article thirty-seventh article sixth can make clear, our current law is to the actual losses subject to property damage, implementation of the principle of full compensation.

 Secondly, loss of vehicle depreciation is the objective existence. In the traffic accident disputes, damaged vehicles tend to get repair, is generally believed that the vehicle repair has property damage of victims to compensation, do not need to compensate the loss of vehicle depreciation. In fact, in the traffic accident, especially the serious traffic accident damaged vehicles, although be repaired, but it is very difficult to completely recover to the performance before the accident, the vehicle safety is reduced correspondingly. In the market, once the vehicle traffic accidents, the transaction price than the same situation but no accident vehicles are low, so the loss of vehicle depreciation is in fact the existence of.

 Once again, loss of vehicle depreciation is the direct property losses caused by traffic accidents. In fact, due to loss of vehicle depreciation is the "invisible loss", are often neglected, and even that is indirect loss. In fact, the vehicle devaluation loss is in the traffic accident, accident due to violations of property rights, caused damage to the victim, is the direct property loss. Not because of the loss is intangible, identified as the indirect loss.

 Finally, that loss of vehicle depreciation amount. Not all of the accident vehicles are devaluation loss, such as damaged car cut loiter, non critical parts, these can be repaired or replaced, realize the complete compensation of victims. Only when the vehicle is damaged to a certain extent, can be found damaged vehicle depreciation loss. How much loss of vehicle depreciation and, is the professional issues, should not by the judge's discretion. The court shall entrust an eligible appraisal institution, make a conclusion based on the recency, vehicle damage, to determine how much depreciation loss to the conclusions of the assessment.

 (the people's Court of Yuzhou City, Henan Province, the author unit:)

Source: People's Court on Thursday November 8, 2012