The lawyer questioned:

Decision of the State Council "on the revision of 'motor vehicle traffic accident liability compulsory insurance regulations'."

Decision regarding the revision of "the compulsory motor vehicle traffic accident liability insurance regulations"

(2012Years12Month17Announced 2013Years3Month1Date of implementation)

The State Council decided to make the following amendments to the "motor vehicle traffic accident liability compulsory insurance Ordinance":

One article is added as article forty-third,: "trailer is not the insured motor vehicle traffic accident liability compulsory insurance. Road traffic accident caused personal injury, loss of property, forced by the traction car insurance company in motor vehicle traffic accident liability insurance liability limits the scope of compensation; the problems, by the tractor and trailer shall bear the liability for compensation according to law."

This decision since2013Years3Month1The date of promulgation.

"Motor vehicle traffic accident liability compulsory insurance regulations" shall be amended according to this decision and order of the clauses shall be adjusted, re released.

[Chen Zhihui's lawyer questioned]The amendment should fit the rules of the road traffic accident judicial interpretation of article21A (a) shall have. But the author doubts, the first period shall be a comma, otherwise, illogical, explain the contradiction and just effective judicial.

Suspected sources of error, but the State Department Web site, find sure as a gun, the first sentence "trailer is not the insured motor vehicle traffic accident liability compulsory insurance" after the next is a full stop, rather than a comma.Http://www.gov.cn/zwgk/2012-12/27/content_2300554.htm(of two)I understand, is wrong?

I think that the new regulations the wrong reasons:

1 "Trailer is not the insured motor vehicle traffic accident liability compulsory insurance."Obviously, a complete meaning affirmative structures, clear the trailer is not strong risk of the insured to pay.

2 It is difficult to understand the sentence for the hypothetical situation, i.e."If the trailer is not insured to pay strong risk", or"In the trailer is not insured to pay strong insurance case". Because they do not meet the Chinese logic habits.

3 Trailers are strong risk of the insured to pay, in "road traffic safety law", cross strong insurance Ordinance, no provisions. But according to the2012Years9Month12The Ministry of public security of the implementation of the "revised on motor vehicle registration regulations" article8Article2Paragraph:"Vehicle administration full trailer and semi-trailer train registration, should be on the tractor and trailer are issued by the motor vehicle registration certificate, license plate and driving permit."That is, the trailer and tractor as two independent vehicle. Chinese CIRC "motor vehicle traffic accident liability compulsory insurance scheme (2008Version) "is also the trailer as"Vehicle type (nine)"To be defined:"Refers to a non powered road vehicle on its design and technical characteristics of traction to the normal use of the vehicle."How to buy compulsory insurance, clear standards for:"According to the actual nature of use trailer and in accordance with the corresponding tonnage truck30%Calculation."

4 The latest judicial interpretation, and in judicial practice, the trailer can not only strong risk of the insured to pay, and must have strong risk of the insured to pay. The latest judicial interpretation will be connected to the tractor and the trailer, used as a special"Multi motor vehicles"Be regulated.

5 Since the State Council's new administrative regulations clearly after the accident, the tractor cross strong insurance Xianxingpeifu shortfall, trailer party still have liability as the vehicle, trailer, nature can be insured via cross strong insurance to avoid the risk. So, the first word of regulations"The trailer is not strong risk of the insured to pay"And in the end will seem to be rather baffling, expressive, and logic upside down, the naysayers and newly issued judicial interpretation, not solemn, legislation such as child's play.

It is suggested that the State Council promulgated the compulsory insurance to amend the decision.

A:

Supreme People's court"On hearing the law applicable to a number of road traffic accident damage compensation cases of interpretation"(2012Years12Month21Day release (2012)19The number)21The provisions:

"Multi motor vehicle traffic accidents caused third people to damage, loss of the motor vehicle compulsory insurance liability beyond the limit, and, by the insurance companies in their respective liability limit shall bear the responsibility for compensation; loss does not exceed the motor vehicle compulsory insurance liability limit and, where a party concerned requests by the insurance company according to the limitation of liability and limitation of liability and the proportion of liability, the people's court shall support.

In accordance with the law are strong risk of the insured to pay the tractor and trailer connection occurs when using the traffic accidents caused by damage to the third party, the parties request compensation from the insurance company an average of the liability limit within their own, the people's court shall support.

Multi motor vehicle traffic accidents caused by damage to the third party, which part of the motor vehicle uninsured party requests by the insured, the insurance company shall make compensation within the liability limit, the people's court shall support. The insurance company is beyond its should bear the obligation to insure part to uninsured people or the infringer recourse, the people's court shall support."

A report of two:

The State Department Web site published regulations.