[Questions]

The road traffic accident, the vehicle owner (or owners) should bear the liability for compensation is paid?

[The case]

Plaintiff: Li Jiaxing

Defendant: Liu Bing

Defendant: Zhang Wenyi (the owner)

The defendant (court additional): Guan Fei

Third people (the court added): new car rental Co., Ltd.

(or more parties are a pseudonym)

In January 5, 2004, Guan Fei and Guiyang emerging automobile leasing Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the leasing company) signed a contract to car rental, leasing company will be a car license plate for your A 86242 yellow Geely cars to turn fly. The contract agreed: the lessee shall not give the vehicle to use third. Then, Liu Bing (no driver's license) from off the flies will borrow the car, driving the car in January 6, 2004 to Guizhou city of Zunyi Province, to your compliance in high grade highway 81KM+100M when driving, due to improper measures, crashed into a highway guardrail, causing the car passenger Li Jiaxing injured, the Guiyang city road traffic accident disability evaluation the committee assessed as VIII, disability level. Liu Bing driving without a license issued by the identification of vehicles in Guizhou Province Public Security Traffic Police Corps detachment three brigade directly under your compliance of road traffic accident responsibility book, inappropriate measures is the direct cause of the accident caused, all liability accident.

Since then, the Li Jiaxing to the Xifeng County of Guizhou Province, the people's court, asked the defendant Liu Bing compensation for their medical expenses 17576.59 yuan, 225 yuan fee, hospitalization due allowance 225 yuan, 225 yuan care, travel 200 yuan, disability allowance 27589.8 yuan, identification of costs 120 yuan, processing the relatives of the transportation costs 200 element, delay costs 180 yuan, total 46541.39 yuan. And for any owner Zhang literary bear joint and several liability on the above expenses. The court made in April 16, 2004 (2004) information issued Spain in the early Republican word 336th civil judgement, the court decided that the defendant Liu Bing in ten days after the verdict in the plaintiff's economic loss of 45256.39 yuan, and the defendant Zhang Wenyi take the responsibility to advance.

The defendant Zhang Wenyi this decision, in accordance with the law in April 27, 2004 to appeal, Guiyang City Intermediate People's court in June 8, 2004 to build a final people (2004) No. 415th civil ruling, ruled that the revocation of Guizhou province Xifeng County People's Court (2004) information issued Spain in the early Republican word no. 336th civil judgment, the case back to the Guizhou province Xifeng County People's court for retrial. In November 8, 2004, Xifeng County People's court held a public hearing of the case, and will turn fly additional for the defendants in the case, the leasing company for an additional third people.

[Comment on]

In this case the focus of controversy in the trial is:

The 1 defendant Zhang Wenyi as the vehicle owner, whether it should bear the compensation responsibility in the case in advance?

The 2 defendant Guan fly and three lease company should bear responsibility in this case? Assume what responsibility?

That traffic accident, we always think of the owners must be responsible, this principle in the hearts of many police and accident basically has the same law. On the origin of law, the provisions of this regulation sources in September 22, 1991 the State Council promulgated the "road traffic accident treatment measures" article thirty-first. The provisions of the said, the accident drivers to pay compensation, by the unit or the owner of the vehicle to advance, unit or vehicle all people to advance to recover the accident. This is legal, and regulations in our country only provides vehicle owner shall be responsible for the accident shall come into force as of the promulgation of the terms, Japan, to May 1, 2004 with the entry into force of the "the people's Republic of China Road Traffic Safety Law" and was abolished.

Because of this rule exists, the vast majority of victims of road traffic accidents in accident mediation or litigation will be the owners as the main compensation, to the right. There is no doubt that, in the past ten years, this provision has played a huge role, many accident victims effective safeguard their rights, which also fully reflects the original lawmakers this clause intention. But, contrary to theories and principles of this clause is itself and tort law. According to the theory of tort law, road traffic accidents as a pattern of tort, the liability must be a causal relationship between the subjective negligence and consequences to add behavior to contact. In the accident, the vast majority of owners do not have any fault, nor any causal relationship and accidents (knowing that the driver to drive without a license will still provide the vehicle except). And "approach to road traffic accidents" in article thirty-first of this provision, irrespective of fault, causality, only the vehicle ownership as the basis of the responsibility for it seems unreasonable legal.

Second, provided by the owners to pay compensation to solve the accident victim compensation problem, seems to protect the weak, fair and reasonable. However, careful scrutiny after the discovery, the basis of victim protection is based on sacrificing the interests of owners on the. In practice, often cause huge compensation but decamp driver, car owners in addition to spend money repairing vehicles, road damage compensation, but also pay huge compensation to the accident casualties, but difficult to recover, so as to bear a heavy economic burden to dissipate one's fortune. Perhaps, some people think that, relative accident victims, vehicle all people in economically strong position in the hearts of the people, after all, can afford to buy the car can't be poor. This sentence in the "road traffic accident treatment measures" issued at the beginning of, namely, the early ninety's of last century may have its rationality. However, with the development of China's economic, now people save money on food and expenses to buy a car is not what fresh matter, moreover, there are still some loan purchase a car. Sometimes, in the accident treatment, the owner of the vehicle in accordance with the provisions for compensation for the likely to be poorer than the victim. Therefore, the economic strength as the formulation of the terms reason apparently did not conform to logic. It should be noted, the protection of victims in traffic accidents, which is in violation of personal, property rights to receive timely compensation is a basic social ethics and responsibility, the responsibility should be borne by the social organization and the government, which should not be pushed to the vehicle owner of the independent social individual to assume.

In 2003, based on the above reasons, and consider, the National People's Congress adopted and promulgated the "the people's Republic of China Road Traffic Safety Law", the law has abolished the provisions of the relevant owners bear the responsibility to advance, replace sb. is composed of driver, insurance companies, road traffic accident social rescue fund compensation system.

The case occurred at a time in the "people's Republic of China Road Traffic Safety Law" came into force as before, then whether Zhang Wenyi was the case as the vehicle owner, shall bear the liability in accordance with the provisions on "approach to road traffic accidents" in article thirty-first?

The author thinks, the answer is not sure. Thirty-one the provisions of distinction must still be applicable, that distinguishes the driver obtains the right to the use of different vehicles to make. In real life, vehicle owners and drivers are not the same person situation mainly has the following five kinds of situations:

The owners hired others to drive;

The vehicle owners will be paid for others to use (leased or contracted);

The vehicle owners will be provided free of charge to others (lending);

The ownership reserved the vehicle sale or did not complete the transfer procedures of the legal;

The driver is not the owner (or vehicle management people, use people) allowed to drive.

The above five situations, liability for compensation in traffic accident processing owners should take when the distinction.

For the first case, the contract of employment relationship between the owners and drivers to the law to identify the owner is the employer, direct foreign civil liability (the Supreme People's court "on the application of the civil procedure law '' opinions on several problems of" forty-fifth).

For the second and third cases, the law is to allow others to use the vehicle owner to know the risks, determine its advance to assume the responsibility of compensation for accident victims ("approach to road traffic accidents" thirty-first). This risk and the owner undertakes by the motor vehicle third party liability compulsory insurance to insurance company passed on, and eventually a can make the victim compensation be meet, but also can make the vehicle all people do not have to because the reasonable outcome of non fault of their own obligations.

For the fourth case, because of the vehicle's actual owner is a vehicle to buy the vehicle, and to possess, use and operation of control rights benefits also belong to the latter, so, keep a seller of vehicle ownership and not to transfer the registration is not the original owners should bear civil liability for the vehicle accident (specific provisions the Supreme People's Court (2002) No. 38 "on the purchase of people use the hire purchase of vehicles in the transport, due to traffic accidents causing property losses, retention of vehicle ownership in the seller should not bear civil liability by the Supreme People's court", December 31, 2001, Jiangsu province higher people's court "about serial purchase a car did not handle the transfer procedures, the original owner of motor vehicle traffic accidents responsibility for the letter").

For the fifth case, namely the use of vehicle driving is not achieving the vehicle owner (or managers, who use) permits, for example, the vehicle was stolen, motor vehicle repair or custody is repair people, keep unauthorized driving. In this situation, because the vehicle all people not allowed, there is the problem of illegal, unauthorized use of the driver so that violations, the consequences can only be undertaken by themselves, the owner of the vehicle without any fault, should not bear the risks and obligations. Motor vehicle third party liability insurance People's Insurance Company of China established in also clearly stipulates: only the vehicle owner or allow drivers in use occurred in the process of vehicle insurance to third of personal, property damage accident just compensation. Thus, the vehicle owner whether to allow others to use their own vehicle is its risk and responsibility prerequisite (of course, there is one exception, use, is the owner of the vehicle are members of the family of this situation can be presumed the owner's permission, not illegal, main responsibility).

In this case, the fifth accused Liu Bing of driving without a license accused Zhang Wenyi of all your A86242 vehicle is belong to the five cases. From the view of case facts, the defendant Zhang Wenyi will entrust all your A86242 vehicles to the leasing company to lease, use, and the company took the vehicle leased to the defendant off flying, because the defendant Guan fly is based on contract legal acquisition of the right to the use of the vehicle, and because the rental company is the principal and authorized the defendant Zhang Wenyi, so the defendant Guan fly to the use of the vehicle shall be deemed to be the owner of a literary license, if is the fly driving the car accident occurred, the owner shall bear the responsibility to advance in accordance with the "Zhang Wenyi law" provisions do thirty-first road traffic accident. However, the key facts of this case is the defendant Guan fly in did not obtain rental companies or owners consent of the Zhang Wenyi to give the vehicle to a no accused Liu Bing driving license and driving, resulting in the traffic accident. This act of flying violates the provisions of the lease contract, and breach cannot give the vehicle and driving without a license. The traffic regulations, the behavior of lead directly to your A86242 vehicle in a dangerous state, and the owners of literature does not know about this situation, and even after not know may allow the transfer. So, even though the defendant Zhang Wenyi is the owner of the vehicle, but because it did not allow the defendant Liu Bing driving, the main reason is not the case of the damage compensation, driving without a license should not assume any responsibility for the accident of the defendant Liu Bing.

Second, whether the defendant Guan fly and the three lease company shall be liable in the case in question.

Because between the defendant off flying with the third lease is a lease contract, according to the relevant provisions of the lease contract, the lessee has the reasonable use and good will keep the lease obligations, "the use of vehicles will not give no driver's license of road traffic management regulations". The fly in the closed during that defendant Liu Bingwu driving licence conditions, without the consent of the owner and the three people in the leasing company permission, permission to the single vehicle piloted by Liu Bing, not only in violation of the contract, and breach of statutory obligations, there is a direct causal relationship between the behavior and the accident and the defendant Liu Bing, should belong to the common tort, should bear the joint and several liability vehicle damage and personal injury.

Effective certificate third leasing companies in this case through rigorous testing the defendant Guan flying license, identity card or other valid lease contract was signed with the vehicle, and submit to fly, subjective fault, no illegal behavior and no causal relationship between damage, it is not constitute the subject of compensation, no compensation liability.

[The trial result]

Guizhou province Xifeng County People's Court of first instance trial that the defendant Liu Bing disclosed: undocumented illegal driving, causing the improper measures of injury caused by traffic accidents, causing damage to the plaintiff, full responsibility for the case. The defendant Guan fly does not comply with the contract signed with the third, knowing that Liu Bing did not obtain a driver's license, no driver's qualifications, and will be rented vehicle traffic accidents is driven by Liu Bing without the consent of the owners and the leasing company, joint and several liability should be the case. The defendant Zhang Wenyi is the owner, but the damage to the plaintiff no fault, and Liu Bing, Guan Fei irregularities no causal relationship, so in this case is not responsible. Third leasing company and the defendant signed off flying car rental contract valid, no fault in this case, there is no causal relationship with the damage, so in this case is not responsible. In accordance with the "general rule of the civil law" article sixth, article 106th paragraph second, 134th (seven), "road traffic accident treatment measures" article thirty-fifth, article thirty-sixth and the "PRC Civil Procedure Law" the provisions of article 130th of the decision as follows:

One, limited the defendant Liu Bing in the verdict within ten days after the plaintiff compensation for losses totaling 45241.39 yuan;

Two, by the close fly jointly and severally liable;

Three, dismissed the plaintiff's other claims.