Article 1217
If a traffic accident involving a non-operating motor vehicle causes damage to an uncompensated passenger, and it is the responsibility of the motor vehicle, the liability for compensation shall be reduced, except where the user of the motor vehicle is intentional or grossly negligent.
1. The main purpose of this article
This article is about the assumption of responsibility in the case of bona fide co-ride.
II. Evolution of the Provisions
This article is a new article, which makes special provisions on the principle of attribution and the reasons for exemption from liability for bona fide ride. As for the liability for damages in traffic accidents involving good intentions, no consensus was reached in the process of formulating the original Tort Liability Law, so no provision was made. In practice, there are a large number of passengers, and it is necessary to clarify what kind of attribution principle should be adopted for damage caused by traffic accidents, and whether gratuitous friendship can be a cause for mitigating damage.
This article summarizes the experience of judicial practice and makes provisions in this regard. The Civil Code Tort Liability Part (Draft) (First Draft) for the first time stipulates that the liability of the motor vehicle party in the case of bona fide co-riding is reduced, and its legal effect is that "its liability for compensation shall be reduced or exempted", but since the Civil Code Tort Liability Part (Draft) (Second Draft), the provision of "exemption" from liability has been deleted, and the content of this article has finally been formed.
3. Interpretation of Provisions
This article is a provision for the rules of bona fide ride-sharing in motor vehicle traffic accidents.
"Riding with good will" refers to the rule that if a traffic accident occurs during the operation of another person's motor vehicle without compensation, causing damage to the unpaid passenger, it is the responsibility of the motor vehicle party, and the liability of the motor vehicle party is reduced.
The rules that apply to goodwill ride-sharing are:
(1) It must be a free ride on another person's motor vehicle, not a paid ride, and the person being ridden is another person's non-operating motor vehicle, not a commercial motor vehicle.
(2) The damage to the passenger caused by a traffic accident shall constitute the liability of the motor vehicle party, that is, the liability of the passenger.
(3) Mitigation of liability. Riding in good faith is an act of providing convenience to others in good faith, and it is an act of altruism, even if it causes damage to the uncompensated passenger, the passenger shall not bear all the liability for compensation, so this article stipulates that even if it is the responsibility of the motor vehicle, its liability for compensation shall be reduced.
(4) Full Liability. If the accident causes damage to the gratuitous passenger, the motor vehicle user is intentionally or grossly negligent, the motor vehicle party shall bear all the liability for compensation.
This rule is not comprehensive enough, and the goodwill ride rule also includes a compensation rule for paying part of the gas or toll. If the passenger pays part of the gasoline or toll fee, it is a paid ride to a certain extent, and the scope of liability borne by the passenger should be greater. For example, if a traffic accident causes damage to an unpaid passenger due to a gratuitous ride, the motor vehicle party shall bear 50% of the liability for compensation, and if part of the gasoline fee or toll fee is paid but the amount of the ticket is not reached, the motor vehicle party shall bear about 70% of the compensation liability; if the amount of gasoline or toll paid is basically the same or similar to the cost of buying a ticket and taking the bus, it is an illegal operation of the motor vehicle party, and the motor vehicle party shall bear more or even all the liability for compensation. Such a rule is not prescribed, and it can be appropriately referred to in judicial practice.
4. Cases
Qian Mousheng, Qian Moudong et al. v. Li Moujun, Mao Mou et al., a motor vehicle traffic accident liability dispute
Facts: Wang Mouping and others collided with Li Moujun's car in a small ordinary passenger car driven by Mao for free, causing damage to the two vehicles and road facilities, the death of Wang Mouping, and the injury of others. Li Moujun is primarily responsible for the accident, and Mao is secondarily responsible for the accident. Li Moujun has purchased compulsory motor vehicle traffic accident liability insurance and commercial third-party liability insurance in an insurance company. The owner of the vehicle driven by Mao is Jinji Company. Mao is the legal representative of Jinji Company, and the vehicle is actually used by Mao. Wang Mouping's husband and son filed a lawsuit with the court, requesting the defendant Li Moujun, the insurance company, Mao, and Jinji Company to jointly and severally compensate the two plaintiffs for funeral expenses, death compensation and other losses. The court held that in this case, Wang Mouping and others took the vehicle driven by Mao for free and caused a traffic accident, and Mao's liability for compensation should be appropriately reduced. Based on the facts of the case, the court held that it was appropriate to reduce Mao's liability by 5% in this case, and that Li Moujun and Mao should each bear the corresponding responsibility, that is, share liability, rather than joint and several liability.
5. Analysis
This case involves the determination of liability for motor vehicle traffic accidents when riding with good intentions. The Tort Liability Law does not provide for it, and the Civil Code has created a new rule. According to Article 1217 of the Civil Code, the liability of the motor vehicle user shall be reduced unless the user of the motor vehicle is intentional or grossly negligent. In this case, the "Road Traffic Accident Determination" determined that Li Moujun was primarily responsible for the accident and Mao was secondarily responsible for the accident. It can be seen that Mao did not have intentional or gross negligence in the motor vehicle traffic accident. Therefore, when Mao bears the liability for compensation to Wang's close relatives, the amount of compensation should be appropriately reduced. The court's decision to reduce Mao's liability by 5% will not only continue to promote the good social morality of helping others in the mainland, but will also urge the user of the motor vehicle to fulfill a reasonable duty of care for the safety of the passengers.