Article 1209
If the owner, manager and user of a motor vehicle are not the same person due to leasing or borrowing, and the damage caused by a traffic accident is the responsibility of one of the motor vehicles, the user of the motor vehicle shall be liable for compensation, and if the owner or manager of the motor vehicle is at fault for the occurrence of the damage, he shall be liable for the corresponding compensation.
1. The main purpose of this article
This article is about the tort liability of the owner, manager and user due to the inconsistency of leasing, borrowing, etc.
II. Evolution of the Provisions
This article is mainly based on Article 49 of the original Tort Liability Law, draws on and absorbs the provisions of Article 1 of the Interpretation on Compensation for Road Traffic Damages (Fa Shi [2012] No. 19), and adds a new rule that the motor vehicle manager is the main body responsible for motor vehicle traffic accidents, so as to meet the practical needs of the inability to transfer the license plate number of motor vehicles due to the purchase restriction of motor vehicles in some cities. In terms of system, since this chapter has already stipulated the order of the first compensation of compulsory liability insurance as a whole, this article deletes the content of the part related to compulsory insurance in Article 49 of the original Tort Liability Law, and no longer stipulates the liability of compulsory liability insurance.
3. Interpretation of Provisions
This article is a provision on the liability for traffic accidents involving leased or borrowed motor vehicles.
The rules provided for in this article shall apply to the attribution of responsibility in the event of a traffic accident when leasing or borrowing a motor vehicle, resulting in inconsistencies between the owner, manager and user of the motor vehicle.
The elements of the liability rules stipulated in this article are: (1) It shall constitute a legal relationship of leasing or borrowing a motor vehicle, in which the lease is a bare car rental, not a motor vehicle rental with a driver. (2) The owner, manager and user of the motor vehicle are not the same person. (3) A traffic accident occurs under the control of the user, causing personal injury or property damage to the infringed party. (4) The responsibility for the traffic accident belongs to the motor vehicle, not the victim.
The form of this liability is one-way joint and several liability, that is, mixed liability, and the rules are: (1) the user of the motor vehicle shall be liable for the damage incurred and shall be liable for all the damages, and even if the owner and manager of the motor vehicle are also negligent, the user shall also bear joint and several liability and be liable for all damages. (2) If the owner or manager of the motor vehicle is also at fault for the occurrence of damage, he shall bear the corresponding liability according to the degree of negligence and the force of the cause, that is, the corresponding liability for compensation. The negligence of the owner or manager of the motor vehicle is mainly manifested in knowing that the user does not have driving qualifications, knowing that the user is in a state of unsuitable driving, such as being drunk, and failing to inform him that his motor vehicle is faulty.
Article 49 of the Tort Liability Law does not stipulate the subject of responsibility of the manager of the motor vehicle, and the main consideration for the addition of this subject in the Civil Code is that due to the policy of restricting the purchase of motor vehicles in various places, the person who contributes to the purchase of the motor vehicle is not the registered owner but the actual manager. Listing the motor vehicle manager as the subject of responsibility can relieve the liability of the person who actually has no ownership interest in the motor vehicle.
4. Cases
Zhangzhou Pacific Company v. Liu Mouliang et al., a motor vehicle traffic accident liability dispute
Facts: One day, Xiong Mouguang drove into pedestrians Liu and Zhang, causing the death of the two. After the accident, Xiong abandoned the car and fled. The traffic police brigade determined that Xiong Mouguang was fully responsible for the accident. The registered owner of the traffic accident vehicle is a certain company, and Xiong Mouguang has a leasing relationship with a certain company.
The car was insured with compulsory motor vehicle traffic accident liability insurance in Jiujiang People's Insurance Company, and third-party liability insurance was insured in Zhangzhou Pacific Company. The close relatives of the deceased requested the court that Xiong Mouguang, a certain company, Jiujiang People's Insurance Company, and Zhangzhou Pacific Company should compensate for their losses. Regarding the determination of the subject of compensation, the court of first instance held that in the traffic accident in this case, Xiong Mouguang was fully responsible for the accident, and Liu and Zhang were not responsible for the accident. As the registered owner of the vehicle that caused the accident, the company delivered the car to Xiong Mouguang, who had a legal driver's license, for use according to the vehicle lease contract, and had completed its statutory and contractual obligations, and was not at fault for the occurrence of the traffic accident in this case. The plaintiff also failed to provide proof that when the company delivered the vehicle to Xiong, the leased property had defects and potential safety hazards. Therefore, a company should not be liable for compensation in this case, and the actual infringer Xiong Mouguang should be liable for compensation. According to the insurance situation of the vehicle, Jiujiang People's Insurance Company should first compensate within the limit of death and disability compensation of compulsory motor vehicle traffic accident liability insurance, and at the same time, Zhangzhou Pacific Company, as the insurer of commercial third-party liability insurance, should bear the responsibility for the part borne by Xiong Mouguang, and the excess part should be compensated by Xiong Mouguang. Dissatisfied, Zhangzhou Pacific Company appealed, requesting exemption from insurance liability. The court of second instance held that Xiong Mouguang's act of abandoning the car and leaving the scene of the accident could not be applied to the provisions of Article 24 of the Model Clauses for Comprehensive Commercial Insurance of Motor Vehicles of the Insurance Association of China, and therefore did not support Zhangzhou Pacific's appeal request for exemption from liability.
5. Analysis
One of the points of dispute in this case is the identification of the responsible entity in the event of a traffic accident involving a leased motor vehicle. Article 1209 of the Civil Code stipulates that the liability for traffic accidents occurs when the owner and user of the leased motor vehicle are not the same. This provision follows the provisions of Article 49 of the Tort Liability Law, which stipulates that the user of the motor vehicle shall bear the liability for compensation, and the owner of the motor vehicle shall bear the corresponding liability for compensation if he is at fault. The fault of the owner of a motor vehicle is often manifested in the form of leasing to a person who is not qualified to drive or delivering a vehicle that does not meet quality standards. In this case, a company, as the owner of a motor vehicle, delivered the vehicle to Xiong Mouguang, who had a legal driver's license, according to the vehicle lease contract, and the delivered vehicle did not have defects or potential safety hazards, so it was not at fault for the occurrence of the traffic accident in this case, and it should not be liable for compensation, but should be borne by the actual infringer, Xiong Mouguang.