Article 1208
If a motor vehicle is involved in a traffic accident and causes damage, it shall be liable for compensation in accordance with the Road Traffic Safety Law and the relevant provisions of this Law.
1. The main purpose of this article
This article is about the application of the law on the liability of motor vehicle traffic accidents.
II. Evolution of the Provisions
This article inherits the provisions of Article 48 of the original Tort Liability Law. In addition to the Road Traffic Safety Law, the tort liability section of the Civil Code also has a special chapter on the liability for motor vehicle traffic accidents, so on the basis of the provisions of Article 48 of the original Tort Liability Law, the provisions of the Civil Code as a source of law have been added. Article 48 of the original Tort Liability Law stipulates that if a motor vehicle is involved in a traffic accident and causes damage, it shall be liable for compensation in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Road Traffic Safety Law. This article has been improved on its basis, and the phrase "liability for compensation in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Road Traffic Safety Law" has been adjusted to "liability for compensation in accordance with the Road Traffic Safety Law and the relevant provisions of this Law", which has been expressed in a normative manner in accordance with the legislative technical specifications.
3. Interpretation of Provisions
This article is a provision for the transfer of responsibility for motor vehicle traffic accidents to the application of the road traffic safety law and the application of this law.
The Road Traffic Safety Law mainly refers to Article 76 of the Road Traffic Safety Law, the basic rules of which are:
(1) To determine the liability for motor vehicle traffic accidents, the compulsory insurance rules for motor vehicle traffic accidents shall first be applied, and the relevant provisions of the Road Traffic Safety Law and the Civil Code shall apply to the insufficient compensation.
(2) The principle of attribution of liability for motor vehicle traffic accidents is as follows: 1) the principle of presumption of fault liability shall apply to traffic accidents between motor vehicles and pedestrians and non-motor vehicle drivers;
(3) The liability for motor vehicle traffic accidents shall be subject to the rule of negligence offset: 1) In the case of a traffic accident between a motor vehicle and a pedestrian or a non-motor vehicle driver, the proportion of liability borne by one party of the motor vehicle shall be increased by 10% above the proportion determined by the fault offset according to the degree of fault and causal force of both parties;
(4) If the motor vehicle party is not at fault at all, and the entire cause of the damage caused by the traffic accident is the fault of the pedestrian or non-motor vehicle driver, the motor vehicle party shall bear no more than 10% of the compensation liability, and the appropriate compensation liability can be determined between 5% and 10% according to the degree of negligence of the victim.
(5) If the victim intentionally causes damage, such as the victim intentionally collides with a motor vehicle and causes damage, the motor vehicle party is exempt from liability.
4. Cases
Li Mouzhen et al. v. Insurance Company Motor Vehicle Traffic Accident Liability Dispute Appeal
Facts: On a certain day, Xu Mouzhou drove a sanitation vehicle owned by the Macheng City Appearance and Environmental Sanitation Management Office and collided with Li Mouzhen, causing Li Mouzhen to be disabled at the tenth degree. Xu Mouzhou bears all the responsibility for the accident, and Li Mouzhen is not responsible. The accident vehicle was insured by the insurance company with compulsory motor vehicle traffic accident liability insurance and commercial third party liability insurance. Li Mouzhen sued the court, requesting the insurance company, Xu Mouzhou and the Macheng City Appearance and Environment Management Office to compensate for the loss. The court of first instance held that the traffic accident occurred during the insurance period, and Li Mouzhen's losses were first compensated by the insurance company within the scope of compulsory traffic insurance and third-party liability insurance, and the insufficient part was shared by the parties to the traffic accident according to the size of the fault liability. The insurance company appealed on the grounds that Li Mouzhen had an agricultural household registration and should not calculate the disability compensation according to urban residents. The court of second instance held that the evidence submitted by Li Mouzhen could prove that she was an urban resident, and that it was not improper for the original trial court to calculate her disability compensation according to the standard of urban residents, so it rejected the appeal and upheld the original judgment.
5. Analysis
The issue of liability for a traffic accident between a motor vehicle and a pedestrian involved in this case is not a special circumstance in the liability for motor vehicle traffic accidents, and therefore, the general rules of liability for motor vehicle traffic accidents should be applied. Chapter 6 of the Tort Liability Law and Chapter 5 of Part VII of the Civil Code "Tort Liability" both have special chapters on liability for motor vehicle traffic accidents. Among them, Article 48 of the Tort Liability Law and Article 1208 of the Civil Code stipulate the general rules of liability for motor vehicle traffic accidents. Article 1208 of the Civil Code, on the basis of Article 48 of the Tort Liability Law, stipulates that the relevant provisions of the Road Traffic Safety Law and the Civil Code shall be applied to determine the liability for compensation, which is essentially a referential clause. The Road Traffic Safety Law not only stipulates the concepts of vehicles, roads and traffic accidents in motor vehicle traffic accidents, but also stipulates the principles of attribution of liability for motor vehicle traffic accidents and the rules for assuming responsibility. According to Article 76 of the Road Traffic Safety Law, in the event of a traffic accident between a motor vehicle and a pedestrian, the principle of presumption of fault shall apply. The traffic accident liability determination proves that Xu Mouzhou is at fault, and Li Mouzhen is not at fault, and Xu Mouzhou should be liable for compensation. According to Article 16 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Cases of Compensation for Damages in Road Traffic Accidents, if the vehicle is still within the insurance period, the insurance company shall first compensate within the scope of compulsory motor vehicle traffic accident liability insurance and commercial third-party liability insurance, and the insufficient part shall be compensated by the Macheng City Appearance and Environmental Sanitation Management Office of Xu's employer. It can be seen that the judgments of the courts of first and second instance in this case are based on law.