A Study On Necessity Apply To Motor Vehicle Traffic Accident Liability Disputes

The emergency system is from the old saying "there is no law when is emergent." Today, there is only one clause embodied in our "Tort Liability Act" ——the 31 th.However, because the express of this clause is abstract,which has led some bias in the practical application of the process.There is no specific definition about "the extent necessary", "appropriate responsibility" and "the emergency" in our "Tort Liability Act".Putting aside diverse doctrinal congregation, the author attempts to draw on the emergency system on a proper understanding of the law application from the current court case in particular how to apply the emergency system.This paper selects the specific case of the type of motor vehicle traffic accident liability disputes, because the emergency system as a possible exemptions in all types of cases, but use all types of cases as a research background may be a little inevitably complicated.This paper selects motor vehicle traffic accident liability disputes as a fixed type of cases, the reason is that the case of an emergency vehicle traffic accident liability cases hedge many, and the emergency system in a motor vehicle accident liability disputes in the applicable typical.This paper is divided into five parts, specifically organized as follows:The first part describes the basis of the emergency vehicle traffic accident liability disputes application. Including the legal basis and prerequisite judgment. Prerequisite judgment refers to the so-called premise of the specific process in the case of a traffic accident liability confirmation of how to treat the problem. This is the legal basis of the emergency system design. In this part focusing on the emergency system in a motor vehicle accident liability disputes applicable particularity and issues will be discussed below.The second part introduces traffic accident liability disputes in the typical cases. Through the use of empirical research methods, classified the collected cases, draw the emergency system in a motor vehicle accident liability disputes in the applications. Mainly in order to illustrate how the courts apply the emergency system and the courts apply the emergency institutional deficiencies in such cases.In the third section describes the traffic accident liability disputes in the applicable elements of the emergency in the judgment. Applications in the emergency vehicle traffic accident liability disputes in essence, is the requirement to determineThe emergency elements judgment. This part does not seem like a list of the various constituent elements of textbooks about the emergency, but I believe that the difficulty of selecting a few cases of the emergency system in a motor vehicle accident liability disputes in the reflected application and the complexity. The author attempts to draw some relatively reasonable in the view of the case on the basis of the analysis.In the fourth part, the author analyzes traffic accident liability sharing applies to disputes. Application of the emergency system must ultimately implement the shared responsibility. Law expressly provides accountability naturally without much ink costs. This paper describes how to deal with the responsibility of the danger caused by natural and caused by people but escaped responsibility- road assistance payments applying.In the fifth part,the author analyzes the burden of proof of traffic accident liability disputes in the emergency application. Look from motor vehicle traffic accident liability disputes referee reason analysis, the majority does not support the application of the emergency system, the emergency is insufficient evidence for the court referee grounds, but the court did not explain how the emergency system has proven to assign responsibility and the parties need to take to prove the degree of responsibility. This makes the "insufficient evidence" rhetoric can easily become applicable to the emergency.this becomes the "master key" of courts.The author analyzes the current burden of proof on the basis of the theory with the actual cases to define a relatively clear proof standard of shared responsibility.