Legal analysis of the third person's injury caused by the collision of two cars
The People's Court of Lianshui County, Jiangsu Province recently tried a case. The basic case is that a traffic accident occurred in August 10 of No.326 Provincial Highway in Jiangsu Province. The ordinary bus driven by driver Li hit the motorcycle driven by Zhang, causing minor injuries to pedestrians on the roadside. Yang's hospitalization, medical expenses and other related expenses totaled 8,000 yuan. Ordinary passenger cars are insured with compulsory insurance in insurance company A, and motorcycles are insured with compulsory insurance in insurance company B. The accident liability confirmation confirmed that Li was responsible for 70% and Zhang was responsible for 30%. Whether Li and Zhang constitute * * * infringement, and how the insurance company can make compensation within the scope of compulsory insurance, this paper analyzes in detail.
1. Do Li and Zhang constitute the same infringement?
Before the implementation of the Tort Liability Law of People's Republic of China (PRC), according to Article 3 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Laws in the Trial of Personal Injury Compensation Cases: "If two or more people intentionally or negligently cause damage to others, or if their torts are directly combined to produce the same damage consequences, it constitutes * *. At the same time, Article 130 of the General Principles of the Civil Law stipulates: "If two or more people infringe upon it and cause damage to others, they shall be jointly and severally liable. "Therefore, there are three kinds of * * * with infringement: one is intentional, and the other is negligent; Third, it is not intentional or negligent, but several acts are directly combined to cause the same damage. If the acts of several people are indirectly combined to cause the same damage, it does not constitute joint infringement, and the actors do not need to bear joint liability, but only joint liability.
Then, in this case, it is obvious that Li and Zhang did not intentionally or negligently. So, does their behavior constitute a direct combination? The author holds a positive opinion. Because in this case, although the individual actions of Li and Zhang are not enough to lead to the occurrence of damage consequences, their joint actions have already caused Yang's injury. In other words, both actions are indispensable direct causes of damage consequences. This is obviously different from indirect combination. In the latter, one of the perpetrators is not the direct cause of the damage, but only provides certain conditions or opportunities for the consequences of the damage. Therefore, the actions of Li and Zhang constitute the same harm, and they need to bear joint and several liability for Yang's damage.
After the Tort Liability Law of People's Republic of China (PRC) came into effect on July 20 10, Article 8 of the law stipulated: "If two or more persons jointly commit torts and cause damage to others, they shall be jointly and severally liable." At the same time, Article 10 stipulates: "If two or more persons commit acts that endanger the personal and property safety of others, and the acts of more than one of them cause damage to others, and the specific infringer can be identified, the infringer shall bear the responsibility; If the specific infringer cannot be determined, the actor shall bear joint and several liability. " Article 1 1: "If two or more persons commit torts separately and cause the same damage, and the tortfeasors' torts are sufficient to cause all damage, the tortfeasors shall be jointly and severally liable." Article 12: "If two or more persons commit infringement separately, causing the same damage, and the responsibility can be determined, each person shall bear corresponding responsibility; If it is difficult to determine the size of the responsibility, it will be liable for compensation on average. " As can be seen from the above four articles, Article 8 stipulates that * * * is the same infringement, and Articles 10, 1 1 2 respectively stipulate that several people have no intention to contact. We can think that in the Tort Liability Law, legislators directly combined several acts of unintentional contact, causing the same damage. That is to say, after the implementation of the Tort Liability Law, the subjective meaning of * * in the constitutive elements of * * with infringement only includes intentional * * and negligent * *.
Therefore, the author believes that after the implementation of the Tort Liability Law, a third person was injured when two cars collided, which does not constitute joint tort. Article 12 of the Tort Liability Law can be applied to the case that two motor vehicles collide and cause damage to a third party: "If two or more persons commit tort separately and cause the same damage, they shall bear corresponding responsibilities; If it is difficult to determine the size of the responsibility, it will be liable for compensation on average. " In this case, Li and Zhang should bear the responsibility. However, if the drivers of two cars illegally drive, resulting in the collision of two cars, resulting in the death or injury of a third person, the provisions of Article 1 1 of this Law on * * * the same dangerous behavior can be applied, and the actors shall be jointly and severally liable for the damage results.
Second, how can insurance companies make compensation within the scope of compulsory insurance?
One view is that insurance company A bears 5600 yuan and insurance company B bears 2400 yuan. This view holds that two or more motor vehicles * * * cause personal and property damage to others. If the loss of the victim is within the sum of the limits of the third party liability insurance, the compensation ratio of the insurance company shall be determined according to the proportion of the liability borne by the motor vehicle driver. Another view is that insurance company A and insurance company B each bear 4000 yuan. This view holds that in the case of multiple vehicles causing damage to people, the insurance company should bear the liability for compensation within the insurance limit, but because the liability of the insurance company is not based on the liability of the insured, the two insurance companies should bear the losses equally. The difference between the two viewpoints lies in whether the insurance company's liability to the third party is based on the mandatory provisions of the law or the wrong behavior of the infringer. The author thinks that the insurance company's liability to the third party is based on the mandatory provisions of the law, not the wrong behavior of the infringer. The reason for this is the following：
1. From the understanding of the legal provisions, Article 76 of the Road Traffic Safety Law of the People's Republic of China stipulates that if a motor vehicle accident causes personal injury or property loss, the insurance company shall make compensation within the limits of compulsory motor vehicle third-party liability insurance; The insufficient part shall be liable for compensation in accordance with the following provisions: (1) In case of a traffic accident between motor vehicles, the party at fault shall be liable for compensation; If both parties are at fault, they shall share the responsibility according to the proportion of their respective faults ... The first half stipulates that the insurance company shall make compensation within the limit of compulsory motor vehicle third-party liability insurance, but the legislator has not clearly stipulated that the insurance company shall bear corresponding responsibilities according to the fault of the insured. At the same time, through the comparison between the first half and the second half, it can be concluded that the basis of insurance company's responsibility for victims is different from that of motor vehicle drivers. The latter is based on the fault behavior of the motor vehicle driver, and the responsibility is mainly judged according to the fault, so the former is not based on the fault behavior of the motor vehicle driver. In addition, Article 3 of the Regulations on Compulsory Liability Insurance for Motor Vehicle Traffic Accidents stipulates that the compulsory liability insurance for motor vehicle traffic accidents mentioned in these Regulations refers to the compulsory liability insurance in which the insurance company compensates the victims other than the insured and the people on board for personal injury and property loss within the liability limit. It can be seen that the main features of compulsory insurance are embodied in compulsory clauses, namely compulsory purchase and compulsory compensation. From the understanding of the meaning of the above provisions, the insurance company's division of the third party's liability is not based on the degree of the infringer's fault behavior, but on the mandatory provisions of the law.
Second, from the legislative purpose of the law, the main reason for insurance companies to compensate victims is to fill the losses of victims in time and spread the compensation risk of policyholders. Comprehensively look at the relationship among the insured, the insurer and the third party. The contractual relationship between the insured and the insurer is the bond, but because the first legislative purpose of compulsory insurance is to protect the third party, it forms a legal responsibility between the insurer and the third party. In other words, the insurer's liability for compensation has nothing to do with whether the motor vehicle driver constitutes tort liability and the size of tort liability.
To sum up, the author thinks that insurance company A and insurance company B should each bear 4000 yuan.
Comments: After the implementation of the Tort Liability Law, the grass-roots courts should carefully study the case when trying cases of damage caused by two motor vehicles to a third party, and combine the the Supreme People's Court Interpretation on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Laws in the Trial of Personal Injury Compensation Cases, the General Principles of the Civil Law of People's Republic of China (PRC), the Road Traffic Safety Law of the People's Republic of China, the Tort Liability Law of People's Republic of China (PRC) and other laws, regulations and judicial interpretations. It should be recognized that the collision of two motor vehicles does not constitute infringement, and the infringer should bear the corresponding share of responsibility according to his own fault, but the compensation liability of the insurance company in compulsory insurance should not be shared according to the infringer's fault, but should be shared equally.
Case:
Due to distraction, Huang collided with Wan's minivan when he turned the corner. Because Wanmou's speed was faster, he deviated from the original driving direction after being hit, and crashed into Liu, who was riding a bicycle through the intersection, causing serious injuries after falling to the ground. Huang Hewan was also injured in the accident and the vehicle was damaged to varying degrees. Liu asked Wan to compensate for the loss, and Wan claimed that Liu's loss should be compensated by Wan and Huang.
Disagree:
The focus of this case is who should bear the responsibility for Liu's loss, that is, whether Liu's damage was caused by Wan alone or by the joint infringement of Wan and Huang. To this, there are two different opinions:
The first opinion is that Wan is the direct cause of Liu's serious injury. Although Wan's infringement occurred under the action of external forces, he was also at fault for the action of external forces and the occurrence of damage results. Therefore, Liu's liability for damages should be borne by Wan.
The second opinion is that Liu's damage result is caused by Huang and Wan's illegal behavior. Huang and Wan are the same infringer in the traffic accident, and they should be jointly and severally liable for compensation to Liu according to their respective degrees of fault in the traffic accident.
Comments:
The core issue of this case is whether the illegal driving behavior of Huang and Wan constitutes the same tort. This is directly related to the responsibility relationship between the two sides of the accident vehicle on the issue of Liu's damage compensation-that is, whether one party bears the responsibility or both parties share the responsibility; Is it joint and several liability or joint and several liability?
* * * Torts can be divided into two categories: First, it is interesting to connect with torts, including intentional acts and negligent acts. The theoretical basis of * * * and the infringer who requires interest connection is that joint liability comes from the integrity of the responsible subject, and the integrity of the responsible subject comes from the similarity of subjective faults. Therefore, it is considered that there must be a kind of * * * fault to connect * * * with the infringer into the same indivisible whole and become the same subject of * * *. The inseparability between * * * and the infringer stems from their same fault. Second, the * * * tort of unintentional contact mainly refers to the tort of unintentional contact, but the damage result is inseparable. The theoretical basis of asking the * * * who has no intention to contact with the infringer to bear joint and several liability lies in: according to the inseparable damage facts and the value orientation of protecting the interests of the weak, the innocent and the victims in contemporary civil law, asking the * * * who has no intention to contact with the infringer to bear joint and several liability.
In this case, Huang and Wan Su are strangers. It was only accidental factors that caused the two cars to collide, causing the third person Liu to be seriously injured. They didn't have the same intention or negligence, but Liu's loss was caused by Huang Hewan, and the two were inseparable. Therefore, it can be concluded that Huang and Wan's behavior belongs to the violation of * * * by meaningless contact. Therefore, Huang and Wan should be jointly and severally liable for the damage to Liu, and the party who bears more can recover from the other party. As far as this case is concerned, there are still problems in practice. If the victim only sues some injurers for compensation, should the court add other injurers as co-defendants to participate in the lawsuit and bear joint liability? In my opinion, the tort in this case belongs to the joint tort of * * * meaningless contact, and the basis of the infringer's joint liability is the value concept of fully protecting the interests of the victim and obtaining compensation. Therefore, as far as traffic accident damage compensation cases are concerned, the court should define the corresponding responsibilities according to the fault of the injurer, and order the injurer to bear joint and several liabilities on the basis of clarifying the compensation share of the injurer. The application of joint and several liability is mainly to prevent the victim from getting full compensation because some of the perpetrators are unable to repay. If the victim is only allowed to sue some of the perpetrators, then the court can't determine the responsibility sharing between them when only some of the perpetrators are present, and can only judge the alleged perpetrators to bear all the responsibilities, which violates the original intention of applying joint and several liability and is difficult to protect the interests of the victims to a greater extent. Moreover, because the share of responsibility is difficult to determine, if the injurer who bears more responsibility wants to recover from other injurers, he will have to sue separately and ask the court to determine the share of responsibility, which will lead to litigation fatigue. Therefore, if the injured party only sues some injurers, the court should add other injurers as co-defendants to participate in the proceedings and bear joint liability. If the victim explicitly waives the right to claim from others, the people's court shall list the alleged infringer as the defendant, and specify the waiver of the victim in the legal document. The accused injurer is not liable for the share of compensation that the unproven injurer should bear, because in this case, the victim voluntarily gave up the claim for compensation from other injurers, and it is meaningless to contact * * * to bear joint liability with the infringer, that is, fully protecting the interests of the victim no longer exists. Therefore, it is unfair to insist that some of the alleged perpetrators bear joint and several liability.
To sum up, although the direct factor causing the third person Liu's serious injury in the traffic accident is the collision of the accident vehicle, the essence of the third person Liu's serious injury is the resultant force of the traffic accident caused by Huang and Wan's violation, and the result of Liu's serious injury is the damage caused by Huang and Wan's violation, which is an integral part of the whole traffic accident. Therefore, the author agrees with the second opinion: Huang and Wan constitute the same infringer in the traffic accident and should be jointly and severally liable for compensation.
Further reading: How to buy insurance, which is good, and teach you how to avoid these "pits" of insurance.