The Ministry of Public Security Traffic Management Bureau on stolen motor vehicle accident who should bear the

Liability for damage compensation letter

(bus tube1998 181No.)

The Supreme People's court research laboratory:
　Your room "about the stolen motor vehicle accident who should bear the liability for damages of the reply"(Draft)Dated. Through the research, we will inform you of my opinion, for reference.
I released the "road traffic accident handling procedures" provisions of article tenth, the parties have other suspects, transfer departments, and notify the party concerned to file an incidental civil action for damages. Therefore, motor vehicle theft vehicle criminals use or others to use criminal theft crime, criminals were brought to solve the possession of the criminal supplementary civil action, the stolen vehicle all people as the general absence of motor vehicle theft fault liability issues, and therefore should not bear any legal responsibility, including generation the liability for compensation.  July 9, 1998

The Supreme People's Court of law interpretation[1999]13On the stolen motor vehicle accident

Approval of the liability for damages borne by whom　Method (release1999)13No.)

Notice of the Supreme People's Court of the people's Republic of China

"Approved" the Supreme People's Court on a stolen motor vehicle accident who is liable for damages of the Supreme People's Court on June 18, 1999 the 1069th meeting of the judicial committee, is hereby promulgated, shall enter into force as of July 3, 1999. 　　

            June 25, 1999

The Henan Provincial Higher People's court:

You Institute "about the stolen for" motor vehicle accident after the accident flight who bear the liability for damages has been received. Through research, the following reply:

   Motor vehicle accident using theft, cause material losses of victims, the party shall be liable for damages in accordance with the law, all the stolen motor vehicle is not liable for damages.

The Ministry of public security on the determination of reply the issue of ownership of motor vehicles

The bus duct (2000)98No.

The Supreme People's Court Executive office:

    You do5Month23Thank you for your letter dated,We reply as follows:

  According to the existing vehicle registration regulations and the relevant provisions, the registration of motor vehicles for the public security organs, is granted or not granted registration on the road, not the ownership of the motor vehicle registration. In order to meet the needs of traffic management, vehicle management of public security organs for vehicle license plate location, to purchase a car invoice or the people's court judgment, ruling, mediation and other legal instruments vehicle origin certificate confirm the motor vehicle owners. Therefore, the public security organs registered owners, should not be used as the basis for identification of vehicle ownership.

     Hereby reply             2000Years6Month5Day

The Ministry of public security on the transfer of vehicle ownership of property of time of the reply

The bus duct (2000)110No.

The Supreme People's court research laboratory:

  Your room "on the solicitation<About how to determine the transfer of vehicle ownership of property of time of the reply(Draft) >Letter "((Law2000)41No.)Received, we reply as follows:

  According to the existing vehicle registration regulations and the relevant provisions, the registration of motor vehicles for the public security organs, is granted or not granted a motor vehicle on road motor vehicle registration, the registration of ownership is not. Therefore, the vehicle management department for the transfer of registration time as the transfer of ownership of motor vehicle property of time there is no legal basis.

           Hereby reply

The Supreme People's Court on the vehicle carrying case registration unit and the actual outCapital

BuyPeopleHow to handle the problem of inconsistent reply 

[2000]Hold him no.25No.

The higher people's Court of Shanghai:
You Institute Shanghai high method[1999]321"On the implementation of the cases, the vehicle registration unit and the actual purchase inconsistent and should consult the" how to deal with the receipt. Through research, the following reply:
In this case the person to be enforced or register the name of Shanghai Fu Long Food Co. Ltd. the name three vehicles does not claim ownership; the third people of Shanghai artificial peninsula Construction Development Co. Ltd. signed an agreement with the commitment expressed their true meaning, there is no transfer of property suspected; and the purchase of third issued by the three cars the accounting vouchers, bank books list, maintenance fee and tax certificate, proof of third for the actual investor, alone on the three motor vehicles possession, use, income and disposition. Therefore, in this case three motor vehicles should not determine the registration of the name of the owner shall be based on human, and fairness, the principle of equivalence paid, determined to third people all. Please, supervise the implementation of court to release the three vehicles.
This complex

Two in 2000 in November twenty-one

Notice of the Supreme People's Court of the people's Republic of China

"The Supreme People's Court on the purchase of people use installment purchases of vehicles in the transport because of traffic accident causing the loss of property of others, the seller retains the ownership of the vehicleShould not reply to bear civil liability "
"The Supreme People's Court on the purchase of people use installment purchases of vehicles in the transport because of traffic accident causing the loss of property of others, keep out" approval shall not bear civil liability of vehicle ownership, have to2000Years11Month21The trial by the Supreme People's Court on the1143Meeting of the, is hereby announced,

Since the2000Years12Month8DayImplementation date.
Two in 2000 to December 1st　　　

Sichuan Provincial Higher People's court:
You Institute (Sichuan high method1999)2Number "on the installment, the retained ownership of vehicle sales contract during the transportation of the goods to buy party causes losses to others the use of the vehicle, the seller should bear civil liability for" receipt. Through research, the following reply:
Take the installment purchase a car, a seller in the purchaser paid car retains the ownership of a vehicle, 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.
This complex

20006Month16Day

The Supreme People's Court on the actual owners hit and its affiliated units

Should bear the responsibility of reply  (2001The people he word article)23No.

The Hubei Provincial Higher People's court:
You for "instructions" about the actual owners hit and its affiliated units should bear the responsibility of receipt. We think, the case is affiliated to Hubei Yang Feng Limited by Share Ltd from the affiliated vehicles in operation made interest, therefore should bear civil liability to an appropriate extent.

The Supreme People's Court on a series of purchase a car did not handle the transfer procedures, the original owner

Whether the response of motor vehicleThe occurrence of traffic accidents responsibility reply

The Jiangsu Provincial Higher People's court:
You Institute "about serial purchase a car not handle the transfer procedures, the original owners ask" whether to motor vehicle traffic accident responsibility for the damage caused by the receipt. From the point of view that:
A series of purchase a car did not handle the transfer procedures, as vehicles have been delivered, the original owner can not control the vehicle operation, also cannot benefit from the vehicle operation, it is not the original owners deal with motor vehicle traffic accidents responsibility. However, a series of purchase a car not transfer procedures for the behavior, is in violation of the relevantAdministrative regulations, should be subject to the provisions of regulation.

Supreme People's court          December 31, 2001

Gansu Province Higher People's Court about being linked units of motor vehicle

Reply to bear the compensation liability for damage in traffic accident2005Years12Month27Day

Gangaw method [2005]311No.

Jiuquan City Intermediate People's court:

   You Institute (2005The French word article) wine02"About whether the owner, at request" for motor vehicle traffic accidents were liable for damage caused by the receipt. The judicial committee2005Years12Month27Daily article46Discussion at the meeting, as follows:

  Be linked units charged management fees, and to link it to the vehicle operation has certain rights, assume joint responsibility; on the other hand, do not assume responsibility. Be linked units charged management fees, no right to call the vehicle operation, the affiliated units to assume limited liability only in the range of charging management fees, except for the private use of non operating vehicles.

This complex

The property law of the people's Republic of China

(2007Years3Month16The tenth session of the National People's Congress fifth conference)

Article twenty-third chattel, takes effect upon delivery, except otherwise provided by law.

　

Individual vehicles linked to a transport enterprise engaged in business is a universal phenomenon, it is the national standard transport market, transport industry is high-risk behavior. After the traffic accident, there is tort liability, linked to distribution have been linked with the responsibility, this is a point in the trial practice arbitrary comparison. On the tort liability of traffic accidents, in China's "road traffic safety law", "general principles of civil law" and the related judicial interpretation, these norms, some are too general provisions, such as the "general principles of civil law" with a list of the transport sector in "the dangerous profession", did not set tort liability is anchored in it and how to allocate. "Road traffic safety law" provides only the owner of the vehicle shall bear the responsibility, there is no distinction between it and be hanged (i.e., the actual owners and the name of the owner) difference and the allocation of responsibility. Some of the relevant judicial interpretation there are contradictions. The Supreme People's Court (such as2001The people he word article)23No. 'about the actual owners hit and its affiliated units should bear the responsibility to reply "states:" if the company was linked gained benefits from the affiliated vehicles in operation, has been linked unit shall bear civil liability for compensation in the appropriate". "The proper responsibility" is a what responsibility? A Court Supreme Court have no specific norms. The Supreme People's court in another judicial interpretation "on the trial of several legal problems of road traffic accident with injuries of solution", the affiliated vehicles because of damage to people caused by traffic accidents, "should be linked to assume liability to pay compensation". But then again: "for it cannot pay part, to be paid by the affiliated person." The two judicial interpretations from the same legal theory -- operation control and operation interests. The transportation industry is a high-risk industry, who to transport vehicles having dominion, who bear the tort liability, tort liability is strict liability in tort, who who is responsible for. Be linked units although the registration for the owners, but no actual control of vehicles, the actual owners investment purchase a car is practical knowledge of vehicle, their own business, self financing, liability for compensation shall be the actual owners bear. The affiliated enterprise in calling behavior to obtain practical interests, can bear corresponding responsibility properly,. The two judicial interpretations, direction is not contradictory, the problem is given the responsibility of affiliated the two different ways of responsibility and the responsibility of different content. The bear tort liability and vicarious liability.

Therefore, in judicial practice, the emergence of a different interpretation linked responsibility and different sentence law, summed up in five sentences: one, unlimited joint and several liability, namely the decision the actual owners bear tort liability, by sponsoring units shall assume joint and several liability; two, limited liability, namely in the the actual owner of judgment shall assume the liability of compensation at the same time, the verdict was linked units shall bear joint and several liability in charge management or service fees range; three, less than part of the supplementary liability, namely the actual owner of any judgment premise in the absence of capacity payment shall bear civil liability for the owner, no ability to pay part, shall be borne by the project unit; four, the responsibility to advance, namely the decision without any loss in the actual ability of owners, no ability to pay part of the affiliated enterprise, advance, advance shall have the recourse against the actual owners; five, do not assume responsibility, the verdict was linked units does not assume liability to pay compensation, also be linked units have not made interest in the affiliated relationship based on, but sometimes not good grasp.

The above five kinds of judgment method, the first three derived from the interpretation of the appropriate responsibility, fourth derived from another judicial interpretation. And the above several decision mostly by the provinces (city) area high court in this area were standardized. Although the specification, but still shows the trial practice of unbalanced specification.

Our country "tort liability law" the sixth chapter, a section for leasing, borrowing of motor vehicle traffic accident liability, transfer and delivery but not for tort liability in traffic accident registration etc.. Although the allocation method without direct, specific provisions on "responsibility, but can be read from the traffic accident as a kind of tort liability," said the operation control "theory angle" who have dominated transport vehicle weight, imputation principle who should bear the liability for tort. ". Such as "tort liability law" article49Regulation: "lease, borrowed from the vehicle, by the use of motor vehicle shall assume the liability for compensation, the owner of the vehicle is at fault for the damage, assume corresponding responsibility for compensation". Article50Article: "the transfer and delivery but not for the transfer of ownership of motor vehicle traffic accident liability of registration, the assignee liability", the seller does not assume liability to pay compensation. Operation mode borrow or rent is the owner (owner) did not enjoy the vehicle control, although is the owner, no traffic accident responsibility. Transfer or sell the vehicle, as long as the actual delivery has been, though not to transfer the registration, still legally vehicle all people, but it did not enjoy the vehicle operation control, so it will not bear the liability of compensation for traffic accident.

According to "the tort liability law" spirit, we can draw a conclusion that, "running vehicles in the traffic accident, the affiliated units generally should not assume liability to pay compensation. The reasons are as follows:

One, in addition to the registered owner is linked units, has been linked unit does not actually control dominated vehicle operation, operating income will not be affiliated units, the actual owners of accidents in the process of operation, the affiliated enterprise is not wrong. According to the "tort liability law" article49Article, article50The provisions of the sale of spirit, vehicles have been delivered, the traffic accident happened in the process also not transfer, the seller does not enjoy the right of the vehicle, so the exemption, no transfer is not only against a bona fide third party claims, borrow or rent a vehicle all people because not control the dominant vehicle, also be exempt. While the dependence, the affiliated person is only enjoyed the name of capital owners, purchase a car owners actually enjoy the vehicle completely dominating right. Why be linked units cannot be exempt? Because the "tort liability law" does not regulate the affiliated behavior, so should be applied by analogy, linked units do not assume tort responsibility

Two, motor vehicle road traffic accident is a kind of fault liability, fault liability principle, who has fault in the accident, who should bear the responsibility, somewhat fault should bear the responsibility for a bit, no fault, no responsibility. "Tort liability act" through the imputation principles of traffic accident. Lending, leasing relations, embodies the principle of imputation. Lenders no fault in the lending behavior, do not assume responsibility lenders, borrowers borrow fault, assume responsibility. Motor vehicle sale, the seller will be the vehicle for delivery to the buyer, there is no change of registration, still do not bear the responsibility of the seller. And so on in vehicle affiliated relationship, the affiliated person though is the name of the owner, but he did not enjoy the motor vehicle operation control, in the traffic accident was affiliated person without fault, the affiliated person also should not assume liability for tort, hard to be hanged for the joint and several liability, supplementary liability or responsibility to advance, not "tort liability act" in accordance with law, liability of tort liability.

Of course, if has been linked to the accident has fault, it should bear the responsibility for his own fault, but the fault liability is totally different from the joint and several liability, supplementary liability or responsibility to advance.

Three, management mode is a kind of operation mode of government led, advocate,1995The traffic department held a "the cultivation and development of road transport market work conference", the meeting that: through the link, can achieve economies of scale in operations, intensive management, with the transformation of the mode of growth, to increase the automobile transportation coverage, so that they can better serve the community, to limit the crowding measure is wrong......

From the1995The National Conference on transportation department can be seen, is the government leading vehicle management mode. But until now, the laws of the state of "responsibility is clearly defined, the Supreme People's court has two judicial interpretation only specification from the point of trial practice, but it is too broad, and are not uniform, so there will be the provinces (city) Rules Supreme Court each are not identical, and only around the court the same facts of the case different cases. In this case, the court has been linked unit assume different responsibilities that seems to be unfair, is not conducive to the healthy and perfect management mode.

Four, link relationship is actually a under the leadership of the government, the bilateral contract relationship, link direction is affiliated unit to pay a certain amount of management fees, the affiliated units to provide some management services to affiliated party. In this contract, both parties shall strictly perform the contract obligations, if a party fails to contract, thereby causing loss to the other party, shall bear the liability for breach of contract and compensation. From the contract perspective, has been linked unit should not anchored to the vehicle shall bear joint and several liability, supplementary liability or responsibility to advance. That is to say, in principle be linked units shall not bear the liability of traffic accident, if not to the obligations under the contract, it is to bear the liability for breach of contract.

If there is a significant causal relationship between traffic accident causes have been linked with the unit fails to contract obligations, be linked units can also be directly responsible for the accident liability. But this should be the fault liability, rather than the joint and several liability, supplementary liability or responsibility to advance, fault liability should be the responsibility of phase difference.