The Study Of The Compensation Liability Person For Motor Vehicle Damages

Although Mobile vehicle is very dangerous, we always need it. In recentyears, the cases about mobile vehicle rise rapidly. When it's happened,the first thing we should de is to provide sufficient and fast compensationto victims, since we should ascertain the subject of compensation.In Japan and German, the legislation on the mobile compensation isadvanced. For resolving the problem, a special definition named"transportation provider" is created. But, there are different opinions onhow to realize the definition. The most representative theory is "two pointtheory", they regard "transportation provider" as the person that thebenefit and control of the vehicle belonging to. So, if someone shouldanswer for a accident is depended on if he has benefit and control of thevehicle. "one point theory" is another important theory beside the "twopoint theory". In this theory, "transportation benefit" is considered to be aform of "transportation control", they recommend that the judgmentstandard containing "transportation control" and "transportation benefit"should be replaced by the only "transportation control" standard. Thethird theory is "dangerous relationship theory", they claim the one whohas engaged in dangerous activity of vehicle, should liable to thecompensation. These-ones are called "keepers" in German and otherEurope counties. The "keepers" are emphasized two factors, one is "own" or "possession" or "actual control"; the other is "benefit". It's the same toJapan's "two point theory" in essential.There is no mobile vehicle compensation law in our country. Theabolished "transportation accident dealing act" had no stipulation on thesubject of compensation, and yet the new enacted "transportation securitylaw" haven't stimulated it either. There are, three ways of resolvent inpractice. The first one is "two point theory" criterion; the second one is"one point theory" criterion; and the third one is "nominal owner theory".For various of opinions, the practice in different places is different, thisviolates the oneness practice of law in our country and degrades theauthority of judicature.We must pay attention to two important facts, the one is how to providesufficient and quick compensation to victims, the other one is tostrengthen vehicle's owner or manager's responsibility. As to "one pointtheory", it has much unilateralism, although it can resolve the problem insome situation. For benefit owner and manager are the same. The"dangerous relationship theory" can protect victims well, but it enlargessubject of compensation infinity. The "nominal owner theory" has strongadministrative character and it contends the owner should pay first, butthis is lack of jurisprudence fundament. All three theories have obviousdefects.So, we need to reconsider "two point theory". In Japan, the theory has been construed extensively to meet various of cases. In our country, inorder to provide victim sufficient and quick compensation and strengthenvehicle's owner or manager's responsibility, we also need to construe thetheory extensively, we should redefine "transportation control" and"transportation benefit".Thank you...