Identification Of The Subject Of Liability In Motor Vehicle Accident Of Our Country

In recent years,with the rapid development of the automobile industry and theimprovement of people’s living conditions,China’s car ownership has increasedannually.According to the National Ministry of Public Security statistics,as of October2012,China’s vehicle ownership is238million,in2011,the roadtraffic accidentscaused more than60,000deaths,with direct economic losses of over10billion,roadtraffic injuries has become one of the first causes of fatal injuries. Increasingly severetraffic situation that led to the reflection of the relevant laws for motor vehicleaccidents, such as the fuzzy concept of the main responsibility in motor vehicleaccidents, the standard does not explicitly identify the main responsibility of motorvehicle accidents, resulting in practical applications confusion.Identifing the main responsibility of motor vehicle accidents is the key to dealwith traffic accidents, but76of the Road Traffic Safety Law use "motor vehicles" tomake sure who is the liability entity of the traffic occurs between a motor vehicle andnon-motor vehicle drivers, pedestrians, the concept is rather vague and broad, thisformulation only stipulates that the responsibility of the motor vehicle shall, notdirectly specified the internalrelationship belongs to "motor vehicles". Some countriessuch as the United Kingdom uses the word "user",and the Japanese uses th word "Runfor users", and Germany, the Netherlands, Switzerland and other countries use theconcept of "ownership". Germany interprets the "ownership" as "the people who usethe motor vehicle for their own purposes and enjoy a de facto right to dispose of themotor vehicle,or the people who use the motor vehicle for their purposes and enjoythe right to dispose the use of the motor vehicle in the time of the accident." Iconsider that the concept of the main responsibility of motor vehicle accidents to be"ownership" is more appropriate, because such a definition not only embodies themain traffic accident liability identify standards, but also cover the separation of theowner of the vehicle and the user,which is more conducive to traffic handling andtrial.For motor vehicle traffic accident liability subject, the "duality" standards in ourtheoretical and practical trials usually adopts the "operational control" and "operationinterests" combination. However, the present problem is,"operation domination" and"operation interest" itself is a relatively abstract concept, but the law does not clearly defined, only for the special case of the specific provisions, did not explain how toapply these two concepts.The specific understanding of the two standard there isgeneral and narrow sense two different views. The general said, operation dominateboth including the actual, concrete, and the indirect, abstract, latent control; operationbenefit includes not only the direct benefits obtained from the operation of the motorvehicle, including indirect interests and emotional factors based on, such as the spiritof joy, meet, the harmonious interpersonal relationship. The scholars of the narrowsense believe that, these two concepts of "operation control" and "operation interests"should be interpreted narrowly, belonging to vehicle operation control and operationbenefit refers only to the specific ownership of motor vehicle traffic accident in thispractice, the concrete operation of the vehicle’s actual control and operation interest,not including abstract, latent control and indirect interest. The author is more agreewith the narrow views. According to the broad view, for motor vehicle lendingsituation, people interested indirect may be more than one, are likely to be the subjectof liability of motor vehicle traffic accidents, and regardless of the victim, when themotor vehicle traffic accident claims responsibility for these subjects, is likely toencounter a few between the main responsibility mutually making excuses,"kick theball" embarrassing situation. Moreover, grasping the "indirect benefit" is morecomplicated than direct operation benefit, for example, confirm the existence of alegal relationship, whether it is for the purpose of obtaining good interpersonalrelationship, far less that direct operation control and direct the operation simple, clearprofit. Our country "about the stolen motor vehicle after the accident who is liable fordamages of approval","about a serial purchase a car not to transfer procedures, theoriginal vehicle whether to motor vehicle traffic accidents causing damage to assumeresponsibility for approval","tort liability act" in the sixth chapter,"the SupremePeople’s Court on the hearing the road traffic accident damage compensation caseapplicable legal interpretation of several issues" the first part is about the subject ofliability, such provisions are reflected in the operation control of the "duality"standard combined with the operation benefit is dual, and the narrower standard.Therefore, the author thinks that the narrow sense "run control" and "run interests"interpreted narrowly is more reasonable.To sum up, the author agrees with the opinion is the motor vehicle trafficaccident liability subject called "tenure" rather than "a vehicle side", and the standardis "operational control" and "operation interests" combined "duality" standard, specifically: motor vehicle operation control is the main principle that, when theoperation control and operation benefit phase separation, run the benefits belongingjudgement vehicle is supplementary principles, and "operation control" and "operationinterests" generally do narrow interpretation.