A Study On The Nature Of Debt Triggered By One Spouse On A Motor Vehicle Traffic Accident

This paper is mainly about the nature determination of debt triggered by one spouse due to motor vehicle traffic accidents,which result in the third-party personal injury and property damage,etc.The writer discussed the issue with a combination of the case analysis and theoretical analysis.The full paper is divided into five major parts with about 20,000 words.The first part is the different definition of the nature of debt triggered by one spouse in the traffic accident in judicial practice.The writer searched and selected six cases,then briefly introduced them and summarized that,the reasons and the results of whether taking the debt triggered by a motor vehicle accident as the main factor for considering the couple's common debt problem are varied.The second part is the identification criteria for determining the common debt between a couple,mainly including the concept and characteristics of the marital liabilities and the several mainstream recognized standards.The first is the “teleology”,which judge whether it is a common debt from the desirable borrowing and debt interest sharing.The second is the“onomastics” based on the Article 24 of the "Judicial Interpretation II of Marriage Law",it presumes the debts that occur during the existence of the couple's relationship are the marital liabilities.The third is the “synthesis theory”,which identifies the marital liabilities through distinguishing the internal and external.It subjects the application in the internal occasions,and subjects the onomastics in the external occasions.The third part is the nature identification of the debt due to a traffic accident caused by one spouse.It first introduces the concept of tort,and identifies that the debts due to the motor vehicle accident caused by one spouse is a tort,then sums up the difference between this tort and other general tort: the particular factor "motor vehicle" exists,and it is suitable for the fault liability and fault presumed responsibility,strict liability and the special responsibility subject.Then it explores the identification of the indemnifying subject of the motor vehicle accident – “dualism”,that is,the operation control and operation benefit.The writer combined the identification of the martial liabilities and the indemnifying subject of the motor vehicle accident,then tried to propose the nature confirmative rules of the debts triggered by a motor vehicle accident from one spouse.In general,the non-infringing spouse does not bear theliability for debts arising from a motor vehicle accident triggered by one spouse,but if the infringer drives a motor vehicle for the purpose of family life or it is related to the family interests,it should be deemed as the martial liabilities.If there is no domination right,it should consider the operation profit.If it is not related to family life,it will not belong to the martial liabilities,and vice versa.The fourth part is the legislative proposals to improve the handling of debt problems caused by motor vehicle accidents.It suggests that the legislature should classify the marital liabilities in types and clarify the scope,so as to facilitate the referee law enforcement and law-abiding citizens.It also should distinguish the “internal” and “external” situations on the distribution of persuasion burden bearing.In internal affairs where the third party is not involved,if the infringing party claims it is a marital liability,the infringing party should undertake the proof burden that the motor vehicle operating benefits belong to the family.In external affairs where the third party is involved,the compensation claimant should be responsible for proofing that the debts really occur and exist during the existence of the couple.If the couple of the non-infringing spouse claims that it is not a marital liability,he/she should claim the persuasion burden that he/she have not enjoyed the benefits of motor vehicles.In terms of the settlement of the marital liabilities,if it is considered as the personal debt for one spouse,the infringing party should repay with his/her personal property whether the couple divorce or not.If it is identified as the marital liability,it first repay with the common property,but if the common property cannot be paid off,it will be settled by one party's personal property,and one spouse has the right to claim compensation from the other spouse for his/her personal property or for the future formation of the joint property.For the divorced couple,the compensation claimant stills can claim from both spouses,and once the non-infringing party has paid off,he/she can recovery from the other party based on the divorce agreement court instrument.The share of recovery should be determined according to the agreement of both spouses or the court decision.The fifth part,based on the nature confirmative rules of debts due to traffic accident triggered by one spouse,the author commented on the above six cases.