The presiding judge and judge:
Entrusted by the defendant in this case, Daqing Siyang Law Firm appointed me as its agent to attend the litigation. Through the understanding of this case and today's court investigation, we express the following opinions:
First, the plaintiff's claim is groundless.
Legalization of liability is the basic jurisprudence to determine whether the subject of legal relationship bears legal liability. It is a basic legal principle to determine whether the subject of legal relationship bears legal responsibility based on facts and taking law as the criterion. In other words, whether the subject of legal relationship bears legal responsibility and what responsibility it bears must be clearly stipulated in relevant laws. It is a basic common sense of the theory of legal liability that there is no express stipulation that it is not responsible and there is no express stipulation that it is not punished. The driver in this case was a horse, according to the responsibility certificate. Daqing Traffic Police Detachment 20040 14 has determined that Ma bears all the responsibilities of this traffic accident, so the losses caused by this accident should be borne by Ma himself. The newly promulgated laws and regulations on road traffic safety have no corresponding provisions on the responsibility of vehicle owners, so it should be said that the plaintiff's demand for the defendant to bear the responsibility is unfounded. And Ma divorced the defendant in this case in 2002, so the defendant in this case has nothing to do with Ma, so the defendant in this case has no responsibility.
Second, it is an important content of the newly promulgated laws and regulations on road traffic safety that the no-fault owner does not assume responsibility.
1992, Article 31 of the Measures for Handling Road Traffic Accidents stipulates that the owner shall bear the responsibility of paying compensation in advance. That is, if the responsible driver is unable to compensate, the driver's unit or motor vehicle owner will pay first, and then the driver's unit or motor vehicle owner will recover from the driver. However, during the implementation of the Measures, the Supreme People's Court's judicial interpretation and the documents of the Ministry of Public Security constantly revised the clause that no-fault car owners should bear the responsibility of first payment, and gradually exempted the liability of no-fault car owners. The Ministry of Public Security 1998 stipulates that the owner shall not be responsible for the accident of stolen vehicles, the Supreme People's Court Fa Shi (2000) No.38 stipulates that the owner shall not be responsible for the accident of car purchase by stages, and the reply of the Supreme People's Court No.2001Zi No.32 to the Jiangsu Higher People's Court stipulates that serial car purchase has not been handled. In fact, it is unfair to ask the motor vehicle owner to bear the responsibility of paying compensation in advance when the motor vehicle owner and the driver are not the same person. For example, in this traffic accident, the driver of a motor vehicle is a person with full capacity for civil conduct and is qualified to drive. There is nothing wrong with the owner lending the vehicle, and the driver should bear the responsibility himself. Just like a person borrowed a bicycle and had a traffic accident, which caused losses, the bicycle owner should not bear the responsibility. A person borrowed a knife to mow the grass, but the person directly responsible should bear the responsibility for quarreling with others, not the owner of the knife.
The new road safety regulations, which came into effect in May this year 1, completely abolished the provisions of the owner's first payment responsibility. The second paragraph of Article 76 of the Road Traffic Safety Law of the People's Republic of China stipulates: "If a motor vehicle has a traffic accident with a non-motor vehicle driver or pedestrian, the motor vehicle shall bear the responsibility; There is evidence that the loss of traffic accidents is caused by non-motor vehicle drivers and pedestrians violating road traffic safety laws and regulations, and motor vehicle drivers have taken necessary measures to reduce the responsibility of the motor vehicle side. The loss of traffic accidents is intentionally caused by non-motor vehicle drivers and pedestrians, and the motor vehicle side is not responsible. " Article 91 of the Regulations for the Implementation of the Road Traffic Safety Law of the People's Republic of China stipulates: "The traffic administrative department of the public security organ shall determine the responsibility of the parties according to the role played by their actions in traffic accidents and the severity of their faults." Article 58 of the Procedures for Handling Traffic Accidents of the Ministry of Public Security stipulates: "Mediation of disputes over compensation for traffic accidents shall be conducted in accordance with the following procedures: (4) Determine the liability of the parties for compensation for damages according to the liability of the parties identified in the traffic accident certificate and the provisions of Article 76 of the Road Traffic Safety Law of the People's Republic of China." None of the above-mentioned new road traffic laws and regulations stipulates that the owner shall bear the responsibility of paying in advance. It is a common understanding in judicial practice that no-fault car owners are not liable, and it is also the legislative intention of the new road traffic regulations to cancel the liability of car owners to pay compensation first. With the implementation of new road traffic laws and regulations and the abolition of traffic accident treatment measures, there is no legal document to make new provisions on the responsibility of the owner to pay in advance in the original measures, which is by no means an omission in legislation, but this legislation is intended to exempt the owner from the responsibility without fault.
The defendant was not at fault in this traffic accident and should not be liable for compensation.
The imputation principles of civil law mainly include fault principle, no-fault principle and fairness principle. As a person with full capacity for civil conduct, a horse has the ability to bear civil liability independently and is qualified to drive. There is no fault for the defendant to lend the vehicle to the horse. Therefore, the principle of fault cannot be applied to the defendant. The new road traffic regulations do not stipulate the responsibility of the owner to pay in advance, so the principle of no-fault cannot be applied. The defendant is not the main body responsible for this traffic accident, and the person directly responsible also caused great losses to the defendant in this traffic accident. It is obviously unfair to hold the defendant responsible. Therefore, the plaintiff should not bear any liability for compensation.
To sum up, the plaintiff's claim is groundless, and the defendant has no responsibility in the traffic accident, so he requests the court to dismiss his claim.
Entrusted agent:
lawyer