Case: in 2008 January, Zhang bought a secondhand van from somewhere after Zhao, Zhang in the driving process, pedestrian Lee knocked down and killed. The Lee family Zhang to court, claim. But the court investigation to purchase a car, Zhang did not handle the transfer procedures, the vehicle driving license is still Zhao's name, then who will bear the responsibility? Zhao is jointly liable with Zhang?

   In practice, like this did not apply for transfer procedures and disputes happen often, but China's law does not clearly defined. This also led to the practice is not one, Public opinions are divergent. And there are quite a few people at this point will be starting point on the vehicle in the case did not transfer the case whether ownership has been transferred, the bear to judge responsibility. This is actually a misunderstanding. For this case, we must first make clear the following two points:

   The transfer of 1, vehicles do not transfer does not preclude the ownership.

   2, ownership does not necessarily have to bear the responsibility.

   First look at the first point. On the vehicle when the transfer of ownership issues, China's "property law" twenty-fourth stipulates: ships, aircraft and vehicles, the security establishment, alteration, transfer and elimination, without registration may not be against the third person." This also shows that the transfer of ownership, the vehicle is taken by the registration antagonism, and non effective registration system. Vehicle like all other property from the date of delivery of the transfer of ownership, the seller will be transferred to the buyer when the vehicle ownership has been transferred to the buyer. According to the provisions of China's "contract law", the risk from the date of delivery of the transfer. So, with the transfer of ownership has also carried on the transfer of risk.

   Attached: in the "property law" before the implementation of vehicle ownership in China, when the transfer of the problem has not been clear, there are a lot of conflicts. Such as:

   Provisions of the Ministry of Public Security: "the Ministry of public security on defining the problem of ownership of motor vehicles to reply" bus tube (2000) No. 98: the Supreme People's Court law enforcement office: your way to your letter of May 23rd, 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 vehicle ownership registration. In order to meet the needs of traffic management, vehicle management of public security organs for vehicle license location syndrome by invoice, purchase a car 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.

   Provisions of the Supreme People's Court of the people's court case: August 3, 2006 newspaper column published guidance "motor vehicle registration of ownership transfer registration should be -- Xu Weimin and Deng Yuzhen sale contract dispute case" one article, the referee essence clearly pointed out: Chinese vehicle registration of ownership registration, other rights set, motor vehicle ownership changes, elimination and set up in the ownership of the registration should be taken as the standard. If the vehicle purchase could not handle the transfer, the transfer act invalid on both sides. "Supreme Court bulletin" in 2006 the fourth period published "Xi'an City People's Procuratorate v. Wei Kingdom theft" of "the abstract" is also clearly pointed out: "the motor vehicle has the special property, all must take ownership certificates to assert their ownership. Motor vehicle trading only in the transfer registration procedures, to transfer ownership."

   With the implementation of property rights law, the disputes can draw a full stop.

   Then look at second points. Ownership must bear responsibility? First look at several judicial interpretation by the Supreme court.

   (1) the Supreme People's Court (2001) the people He Zi No. thirty-second on the reply of Jiangsu Provincial Higher People's court "about serial purchase a car did not handle the transfer procedures, the original owners ask" whether to motor vehicle traffic accidents were liable for damage caused by a reply: purchase a car does not handle the transfer procedures, as vehicles have been delivered, the original owner not only can't control the car operations, also cannot benefit from the vehicle operation, therefore, the original owner should not cause damage liability for motor vehicle traffic accident occurred, but not a purchase a car transfer procedures for the behavior, violation of administrative laws and regulations, should be subject to the provisions of regulation.

   (2) "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 (2000) No. 38 provisions of vehicle ownership: take instalment purchase a car, a seller in the purchaser paid car retains the ownership of the vehicle first, 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.

   Through the above two judicial interpretation has established a rule, namely, the original owner should bear the responsibility to see whether the car is still running control and operation benefit. The judge the real owners standard is "operational control" and "operation interests". The so-called operation control usually refers to, can dominate possession vehicle running status in fact. The benefits of the operation, generally refers to because of vehicle operation interest. In other words, the person is a subject of liability from the vehicle damage, to ascertain whether the vehicle runs on the fact in the dominant management status and whether the vehicle runs in two aspects of interest. Furthermore, whether someone is the main responsibility for compensation for damage to vehicles, whether the operation control and related operation benefit to be determined between the people and vehicles."
   Through the above discussion, I believe the two mistakes you will understand this article mentioned at the beginning of the. So, for Zhang, Zhao should bear joint and several liability can also clear. Zhao has been lost due to the actual control of vehicles, lose the benefits of the operation, so it should not bear the responsibility. In addition, the vehicle has been the transfer of ownership.