Interpretation clause
Article 5 The damage caused by the traffic accident of a deck motor vehicle belongs to one party of the motor vehicle, and if the party requests the owner or manager of the deck motor vehicle to bear the liability for compensation, the people's court shall support it; If the owner or manager of a licensed motor vehicle agrees to be licensed, it shall bear joint liability with the owner or manager of the licensed motor vehicle.
Lawyer's explanation
When it is clear that the damage caused by the traffic accident of a deck motor vehicle belongs to the motor vehicle liability, the owner or manager of the deck motor vehicle shall be liable for compensation. However, if the owner or manager of a licensed motor vehicle agrees to deck the license, he shall be jointly and severally liable.
Deck cars are divided into two categories: imported deck cars and domestic deck cars. Because the punishment for deck cars is only detention, detention and fine, the punishment is light, which leads to the phenomenon of deck cars becoming more and more prominent and more harmful. In particular, it is easy to induce traffic accidents, which makes the infringer face the risk of being unable to claim compensation. After most of the deck cars caused damage to others, the owner of the deck car either drove away or abandoned the car to escape, which led to the failure to find the real owner of the deck car, and the deck car had no liability insurance, and the compensation and relief eventually failed.
In judicial practice, due to reasons such as leasing and borrowing, the owners and users of deck motor vehicles disagree. When a traffic accident occurs, the owners and users of deck motor vehicles generally bear joint and several liability for compensation. The licensed motor vehicle owner and the licensed motor vehicle owner cannot prove that their motor vehicle was not on the scene when the traffic accident occurred. In principle, the owner of a licensed motor vehicle shall be solely liable for compensation, and it is not appropriate for the owner of a licensed motor vehicle to bear joint and several liability or share the liability.
Specific case
Case 1:
Who will pay for the accident of the deck car?
[case]
The plaintiff supports * *
Defendant * * Credit Union
Defendant * * County Public Security Fire Brigade
On June 25th, 2004, the plaintiff * * drove a motorcycle to the guest house of Fuzhou coach station and collided with the black Santana m0**84 from Jiangxi. Santana's right headlight scratched the plaintiff's right foot, resulting in the plaintiff's right tibia and fibula fracture. After the accident car stopped for a while, the driver did not get off the bus for inspection, that is, he fled the scene and fled. Since then, the driver's whereabouts are unknown and his identity is unknown. After the accident, the plaintiff was sent to the hospital for treatment, and the medical expenses were 17007 yuan. After leaving the hospital, the doctor suggested internal fixation one year later, and the medical expenses were 4000 yuan. The traffic police detachment of Fuzhou conducted a site investigation on the accident site, and investigated the whereabouts of the owner and driver of m0**84 from Jiangxi. On August 13, 2004, it was found in Road traffic accident responsibility confirmation that * * rural credit cooperatives defrauded and misappropriated the license plates of other vehicles, causing traffic accidents and causing the parties to escape. The party concerned should bear the main responsibility for this accident, and the party concerned should support driving without a license Motorcycle.
It was also found out that the defendant * * Rural Credit Union leased a Beijing Jeep from * * Agricultural Bank of China * * Industrial Co., Ltd. on 1995/month, with the license plate number O * * 84 and the license plate number 1 997 changed to Jiangxi m0**84. 1February, 998, * * Rural Credit Cooperatives presented vehicles, license plates and other vehicle procedures to the * * County Fire Brigade as military support materials. On March 3, 2003 13, * * Credit Union issued a false certificate that Gan m0**84 was stolen in June19991,demanding that * * * Industrial Co., Ltd. stop paying all the fees. On September 3rd, 20041day, the * * County Fire Brigade issued a certificate saying:1February, 1998, the * * Rural Credit Union presented Gan m0**84 Beijing Jeep and all the driving licenses to the * * Fire Brigade as military support materials, and the * * Fire Brigade has been used as the actual owner ever since, and the brigade presented two vehicles due to improper storage in 2004.
[trial]
The court of first instance held that the case was a dispute over compensation for personal injury caused by a road traffic accident, and the driver who caused the accident escaped after driving a bus with a license plate of m0**84 Santana. So far, his true identity cannot be determined. The ultimate actual owner and manager of jeep m0**84 and license plate in Jiangxi Province is * * Fire Brigade, which did not provide evidence to prove that the license plate was stolen or lost. Therefore, it cannot be ruled out that Santana who caused the accident belongs to the * * fire brigade, using the license plate number m0**84 of Jiangxi Province. The traffic police department decided that Santana who caused the accident was mainly responsible for the accident, so it was decided that the * * fire brigade should bear 70% responsibility for the plaintiff. The defendant * * Rural Credit Cooperative is not the last actual controller and manager of Jiangxi m0**84, and is not liable for the losses caused by the traffic accident in this case.
After the verdict was pronounced in the first instance, the defendant * * Fire Brigade appealed that traffic accident compensation should not be held responsible, and requested that the driver involved be added as a party to the case. The court of second instance held that the driver of Santana whose car number was m0**84 from Jiangxi escaped after the accident, but the user of the license plate number was * * Fire Brigade, and the appellant * * Fire Brigade also issued evidence to prove that its license plate was stolen or lost. According to traffic accident responsibility confirmation of the traffic police department, the court of first instance confirmed that there was nothing wrong with the actual controller and manager of the m 0**84 license plate in Jiangxi. The appellant suggested that the driver involved in the accident should be a party to the case. Because the driver has escaped, the appellant can compensate the appellee first, and then recover from the driver. The original trial found the facts clear and handled them properly.
[explanation]
In this case, the driver fled by car and did not find his whereabouts. The defendant * * Rural Credit Cooperative requested to add a driver as the defendant, but the basic information of the requested additional project was inconsistent with the information provided by the insider, which made the court have no reason and basis to determine the true identity of the additional project, so it was impossible to add the driver who caused the accident to be liable for compensation to the defendant.
In this case, the accident vehicle was a Santana passenger car, but the license plate used was a jeep, and the accident vehicle was a registered car. The traffic police could not verify the Santana car and the driver driving it. According to the registered brand, the ultimate actual manager and owner of jeeps and vehicles is the * * fire brigade. Because the * * fire brigade could not prove that its license plate was stolen or lost, the court of first instance presumed that the * * fire brigade was a registered car.
This case involves how to determine the subject of responsibility in traffic accident compensation's case. An accident happened to a deck car, and the vehicle escaped, and the owner was unclear. In the case of traffic accident damage compensation, the uncertainty of the subject of compensation responsibility is the strongest and most important problem reflected by the local court. When defining the subject of liability for motor vehicle damage compensation, the "dualism" of administrative domination and administrative interests is basically used as the judgment benchmark. There are two standards to determine the subject of liability for traffic accident damage compensation: one is the right of execution, that is, who has the right to control and dominate the execution vehicle; The other is the ownership of execution interests, that is, who benefits from vehicle execution. The relevant judicial interpretations made by the Supreme People's Court in recent years also reflect the spirit of "dualism" in which administrative dominance and administrative interests are the main bodies of judging the liability for compensation for traffic accidents. For example, the reply on who should bear the liability for damages after the accident of stolen motor vehicles, and the reply on the request for instructions that the damage caused by yesterday's motor vehicle traffic accident should be borne by the original owner. The subject of responsibility in this case is the subject of responsibility in the form of donation, that is, the owner of the vehicle donates the vehicle to others for use under certain circumstances, and the recipient of the vehicle is the executor and the owner of the benefit. Therefore, in the event of a traffic accident, the donee shall be liable for compensation.
The court of first instance found that the number of the accident vehicle was Jiangxi m0**84, which was rented out twice, and the actual controller and manager was * * fire brigade. The fire brigade has no evidence to prove that the license plate was stolen or lost, so it is presumed to be the owner of the accident car, and it is beneficial to establish a legal and orderly traffic management order to order the fire brigade to bear the liability for compensation.