On The Theoretical Constitution Of Vehicle Traffic Accident Responsibility

The liability for traffic accidents is a common one of civil liabilities in modern society. As control valve of liability for traffic accidents, the constitution of liability must be established in appropriate rules, so as to avoid two extreme phenomena:one is no responsibility for liability, the other being too much investigate into liability. This paper aims at setting the control valve under theoretic direction, realizing scientific classification of the requirements, injecting spiritual principle into the constitution, and constructing a complete theoretic system of constitution of liability.This paper is divided into five parts.In the first part, a sketch of theoretic system of the liability for traffic accidents is given out. The sketch is comprised of three points:interpretation of the title; weak equity theory; hierarchy constitution of imputation for liability. The title "Theoretic Constitution of Liability" is interpreted as two sorts:the constitution of liability in sense of recognition and imputation, which are adopted as the frame of this paper’s writing. After interpretation of title, the theory of weak equity is introduced. Connections between weak equity theory and the system of imputable requirements are necessary part of the introduction. Then, this paper analyzes the hierarchy constitution of imputation for liability which differs from the conventional flat constitution of imputation in our country.Second part is the constitution of liability in sense of recognition, where there is an exhaustive analysis different from first part. In this part, elements of constitution for recognition are divided into three elements, namely subject, object and space-time element. Recognition integrates these elements. Also in this part, some standards concerned with these three elements are suggested for us to distinguish different liability sorts, especially for us to distinguish the traffic liability in sense of the chapter 6 of "Tort Liability Act" in our country from other traffic liabilities. In aspect of subject element, it is asserted that the subject element should be determined according to article 76 of Road Traffic Safety Law and 19th judicial interpretation of SPC, refraining from application of chapter 6 and relevant rules, especially the rules for liability without fault, in the way exceeding the limits necessity. In the aspect of object element, this paper defines some important concepts such as motor vehicle, non-motor vehicle, truck, ancillary facilities, and so on. In the space-time elements, time element is more important. It is a suggested that, in order to determine time element, the standard of traffic technique should be selected rather than mechanic technique. The primary significance of this part lies in recognition as mentioned above. In the occasions where it is necessary to differentiate the traffic liability in sense of chapter 6 of "Tort Liability Act" from environmental tort (for instance, motor vehicle leak or spill oil into pond beside road), or differentiate it from common traffic liability in no sense of chapter 6 of "Tort Liability Act" (for instance that motor vehicle overturn because of their crash into sand pile), and so on. The theoretic standards of recognition ascertained in this paper have an edge in judicial practice.The third part is about constitutional compliance, which constructs the matter of fact in the constitutions of imputation. The constitutional compliance analyzed without any value judgement include three elements namely act, damage and causation. In the first place, three types of torts are presented. The traffic pileup is introduced in more detail especially. Secondly, a dualistic structure of damage is set forth. Some other opinions concerned are suggested here too, such as that lone pure economic loss can not satisfy requirements of damage, and that the conception of damage should extend to the damages in extent meanings, etc.. At last, a viewpoint is proposed that it is necessary to distinguish simple causation and complex causation, in basis of which this paper points out it is because of existence of complex causation that varieties of theory of causation come into being. As for the causational relationship between the part of motor vehicle and pedestrians, or non-motor vehicle, according to the weak equity theory it is suggested the theory of presumptive causation should be applied.The fourth part is focused on two constitutive requirements namely illegality and culpability which constitutes the part of value judgement of the constitutions of imputation. This paper analyzes illegality in brief. Domestic literatures usually define illegality as violation of legal duty, and this preference is favored by practitioner. Consequently, this paper is in favor of that illegality should be determined by violation of legal duty rather than by violation of general duty of care. In other hand, this paper is in favor of that illegality should be an independent requirement than to be absorbed by culpability or constitutional compliance. In aspect of culpability, this paper point out that illogic partition leads illogic legislation, so chapter 6 of "Tort Liability Act" contains liability with fault and liability without fault in the same chapter. In this part, as for the liability the part of motor vehicle assumed for the parts of pedestrian and non-motor vehicle, which is disciplined in subparagraph 2, paragraphl, article 76 and indicated by chapter 6 of "Tort Liability Act", the basic viewpoint of this paper is that it is a liability without fault absolutely, in contrast to the opinion of liability without fault within 10% held by Mr. Wang Liming, Yang Nixing, and so on. As for the traffic liability assumed between both parts of motor vehicle, the viewpoint of this paper is that, it is a general liability with fault, which should be disposed in light of relevant rules in the General Provision, and there is no necessity for setting special provisions in Special Provision.The fifth part is the conclusion. In this part, important viewpoints or opinions of this paper are combed again. As doing these, two aspects are emphasized as following. Firstly, the distinction between the constitution of recognition and imputation should be emphasized in further. Secondly, the distinction between weak and strong equity should be emphasized too. It is advocated strongly the theory of weak equity apply both in theoretic studies and judicial practice.