Vehicle depreciation loss cases and analysis

 A, case:

In October 1, 2007, Zhou driving the company belongs to all vehicles in the freeway, and a car sales company to travel with a car (car sales company in the car on the way to the customer delivery) rear end collision, causing the car sales company car damaged. The police found, Zhou negative the full responsibility for the accident. After Zhou paid part of repair costs 13005 yuan.

Zhou think, pay the repair costs, there is no longer any indemnification obligations. Automobile sales company thinks, the accident caused by an important part of company vehicle girder damage, serious impact on the quality and performance of the vehicle, although the repair after the repair, but still can not meet the factory standard (recovery before the accident intact cannot reach). At the same time the car is car, accident causes the vehicle cannot normal sale. Therefore, to employ the lawyers involved in the solution. According to the lawyer's advice, commissioned by the Hangzhou Price Certification Center of the vehicle devaluation loss identification, assessment of accident vehicle depreciation loss 17577.65 yuan. According to the expert conclusion, car sales company advocate Zhou pay separately for the vehicle devaluation loss 17577.65 yuan and repairs the difference of element, and bear the identification fee of $1000 spent automobile sales company. Both sides cannot reach an agreement for compensation, auto sales, Zhou and Zhou company owners together to court.

Case by the Hangzhou City People's court mediation in Xihu District, Zhou for auto sales, loss of vehicle depreciation, depreciation loss appraisal cost and repair cost difference of 20000 yuan.

 Two, cause of action: road traffic accident compensation for damage to property.

 Three, the specific reasons: loss of vehicle depreciation.

 Loss of vehicle depreciation, refers to a motor vehicle collision accidents, especially the vehicle hit in the accident, although after the repair, but the service life of the vehicle, security, comfort is difficult to restore to before the accident state. Transactions in the second-hand car market price on the accident vehicles are far less than before the accident. The difference here, called the vehicle devaluation loss.

Vehicle depreciation loss claim is the stage belongs to a new type of case. In China's road traffic safety law and no vehicle depreciation costs of this concept, but not the compensation project. But no matter from the theory or in the judicial practice, this claim is a legal basis.

Four, the relevant legal basis:

1, China's general principles of civil law article 106th paragraph second: citizens, legal persons because of their fault encroach upon state or collective property, infringement of property, the person should bear civil liability.

2, the general principles of the civil law article 117th paragraph second: damage to the state, collective property or the property of another, should be restitution or compensation for discount. The third paragraph: if the victim suffers other serious losses, the infringer and shall compensate for the losses. (Note: in the application of the provisions of the order, causing losses of the other should first restitution. Not or cannot restore shall pay compensation at the market price. Reflected in the loss of vehicle depreciation, vehicle seriously damaged, although after the repair can not be completely restored, the loss should pay compensation at the market price)

 3, the Supreme Court on second rule of evidence in civil litigation.

                                                                                                                                                                                  June 18, 2008

 Sequel.

With the increase in vehicle depreciation loss claim cases, all over the court has promulgated some regulations. For a considerable part of the rules I think fairness does not seem to highlight the law, especially the non commodity car owners after major vehicle accident when the vehicle depreciation, the court will not support attitude, is very puzzling. For example, the Hangzhou City Intermediate People's Court issued "issued in 2008 about the road traffic accident damage compensate dispute case related issues opinion" about the loss of vehicle depreciation is so. I excerpted here:

(fifteen) the vehicle devaluation loss.

The current vehicle depreciation loss cases involving mainly into the following categories: vehicle sales to be destroyed, damaged vehicles in the traffic accident. The umpire, part of the court to this type of devaluation loss without legal basis and rejected. Some courts for assessment assessment report to be determined directly. It is necessary to analyze the specific situation of unity. Civil court discussed that, the identification of such losses should be used sparingly. First of all, the depreciation loss, not the legal loss range, the lack of uniform regulations on its connotation, extension, and in the case, is the vehicle after the accident in addition to repair costs, vehicle transaction value or applicable performance suffered damage, which is reflected more value in exchange for vehicle loss. It was impossible to this explicit costs as a statutory compensation project. Secondly, tort cases in the application of tort law, compensation objective is mainly used for filling, reply to, and not in the fulfilling interests, so after the accident, the vehicle damage range is also only the repair, maintenance expenses, the depreciation loss purpose also has exceeded the scope of tort compensation. Third, is currently hearing the case, the parties to the claim of vehicle depreciation loss, although the valuation conclusions assessment agencies support, but such an assessment, is referring to the second-hand car trading evaluation method, the vehicle as to sales of vehicles with the same types of non accident vehicle transaction price compares to that the difference, is identified as devaluation loss, while the infringement cases of infringement and the compensation for loss of property, but the property in the infringement occurred is used for transportation rather than trading commodity, therefore, to let the tortfeasor to foresee the accident vehicle may carry out commodity trading is the lack of basis, at the same time, the transaction price of loss is not in conformity with the law of torts compensation to fill function.

Above all, we think, loss of vehicles involved in traffic accidents, shall direct loss limited to accidents due to damage to the vehicle produced, not including the so-called devaluation loss, indirect or possible loss of project. But it should be noted that in such cases there are also exceptions, that is to be selling vehicles or clear for trading purpose vehicle, traffic accidents or damage to the vehicle, must take into account the special uses of such vehicles, should be on the trading price difference to be found.

                                                              A tribunal of Hangzhou intermediate people's court

The provisions of the Hangzhou intermediate people's court influence caused in practice, has caused great controversy. I think that the relevant provisions as operation guidance should not constitute the court especially the grassroots courts benchmarking, especially against when the provisions and the relevant laws and regulations, the spirit of suspicion. This provision will stand the test of practice, I think every practitioners rub one's eyes and wait. The development of legal practice will eventually give the answer.

                                                                              August 2, 2009