Analysis Of The Principle Of Motor Vehicle Liability Without Compensation

。

Classic case

Wang and a cyclist Huang had a traffic accident, causing Huang Mou to be injured, and the car was seriously damaged.

According to the traffic control department, the rider Huang bears 70% of the main responsibility, and the driver Wang bears the secondary responsibility.

Wang paid a medical fee of 11 thousand yuan for Hwang, and the car repair cost 23 thousand yuan.

Driver Wang said he had already paid medical expenses for Hwang. Huang took the main responsibility for the accident. He should pay the cost of repairing the car. He sued Huang for compensation of 70% of the vehicle repair cost of 16 thousand yuan.

But Huang did not agree.

The court applies the 76 law of the law of the people's Republic of China that the driver, as a vehicle side, requires the non motorized party to undertake the liability of compensation, without legal basis and no support.

The ruling dismissed the plaintiff's claim.

After the first trial, the driver Wang did not appeal to appeal. The court of second instance heard that in this case, there was no evidence that the loss of a motor vehicle was deliberately caused by one side of a motor vehicle. Therefore, the loss of the motor vehicle was borne by Wang, so the decision was rejected and the original judgment was maintained.

The Court pointed out that the "Road Traffic Safety Act" does not clearly stipulate the liability of the non motorized vehicle and pedestrians. In accordance with the road traffic safety law, the legislative spirit of non motor vehicles and pedestrians should be fully protected. Under the circumstances that the current judicial interpretation has not yet been clearly stipulated, if the non motorized vehicle and pedestrians are liable for compensation, there is no legal basis for such a case. Therefore, the non motor vehicle and pedestrians shall not be liable for compensation under such circumstances.

Legal analysis of non motorized vehicles is wrong or not.

The road traffic safety act has been in operation for 6 years. The law has established the principle of compensation for motor vehicles without liability, which has been controversial for a while. At present, the phenomenon of non motor vehicle liability and no compensation has aroused people's doubts again.

In practice, if a motor vehicle or a non motor vehicle has a traffic accident, if it is the full responsibility of the vehicle side, the loss of the motor vehicle can be compensated through the insurance company.

If a motor vehicle is not responsible or bears a secondary liability, it will not be able to get the insurance company to settle the claim, or it can only get limited compensation.

If a vehicle owner prosecute a non motorized party on his own loss, he will face an awkward situation.

The 76 way of road traffic law says that "motor vehicle traffic accidents cause personal injury and loss of property. The insurance company shall make compensation within the limits of the liability limit of the third party liability compulsory insurance", because the motor vehicle third party compulsory liability insurance can only be insured by the motor vehicle, so that 76 can only stipulate the responsibility of the motor vehicle.

Looking at the whole 76 articles, they only mentioned the responsibility of motor vehicle, and did not mention the responsibility of the non motorized vehicle. The original intention of the legislation seems to be that the non motorized vehicle is not liable even if it is at fault.