On The Distribution Mechanism Of Loss By Personal Injury In Road Traffic Accident

This thesis, starting from the angle of compensation for victim, analyses two major institutional arrangements composing of the loss distribution mechanism in motor vehicle accident. Both voluntary and compulsory liability insurance are surveyed in first place. Compulsory insurance system is designed for providing actual capability in payment for fulfilling compensations; state-pushing no fault insurance compensation scheme is put forward as an alternative institutional arrangement against liability insurance in its inception phase. With a introduction and comparison over the critical issues and features of these two institutions, the author tries to develop an examination over this accident compensation area and draw some rudimentary conclusions: first, a focus and priority has been established on the compensation side for the benefit of victims around which the legal institution and rules are constructed; second, "negligence" is marginalized as a factor taken into account in disseminating the loss of accident, especially in terms of compensation for personal injury.This paper consists of introductory remarks, four chapters as main body, and ending remarks.Chapter One is devoted to introduction of principles on liability attribution in Torts and liability insurance with a effort on an exposition of their relationship and interactions. A conclusion is reached that with the reference to the pervasive existence of mandatory automobile liability insurance and compulsory automobile liability insurance there is a responsive reaction happened in the Torts regime. Courts tend toadopt new no fault or semi no fault principle as criterion of attributing liability under torts in road traffic accident cases. The role of "negligence" in the proceedings is downplayed by way of establishing pro-plaintiff approach in rules of burden of proof. Chapter Two discusses over the changes towards no fault insurance compensation from torts regime as an alternative institutional design. Specifically, discussions over the criticism of inefficiency and inadequacy of tort law in terms of compensation provided for victim are reviewed and an assertion that adoption of "fault" or "negligence" principle in road traffic accident is inappropriate. Reform proposals retaining tort regime is also referred in the second part of this chapter. Then, the final section of this chapter briefly reviews the origin, type, features and coverage of main no fault schemes. Merits and demerits of no fault schemes are also surveyed. In Chapter Three, the author delves into the underlying theories of torts and no fault scheme. Four grand theories are under critical examination. With a brief introduction on theories of compensation, the author links those theories with actual law institutions and find out that all these theories are responsible to certain kind of arrangements in real world.Chapter Four surveys both the two institutions of third party compulsory insurance and road fund provided in the Article 17 of newly promulgated "Traffic Road Security Law". This part clearly shows the two institutions are integral parts of our current loss distribution mechanism. A tort regime functioning in tandem with a no fault liability insurance with limited coverage plus a road fund as a minor role, collectively constitute our present loss distribution mechanism. The framework in new Law embodies the trend of protecting plaintiff by putting a priority on providing compensation of personal injury adequately.