Article 1215
Where a traffic accident causes damage to a stolen, robbed or snatched motor vehicle, the person who stole or robbed the vehicle shall be liable for compensation. Where the person who steals, robs or robs the motor vehicle and the user of the motor vehicle are not the same person, and the damage caused by a traffic accident is the responsibility of one party to the motor vehicle, the person who steals, robs or robs the person and the user of the motor vehicle shall bear joint and several liability.
If the insurer advances rescue expenses within the limit of liability of compulsory insurance for motor vehicles, it has the right to recover compensation from the person responsible for the traffic accident.
1. The main purpose of this article
This article is about the subject of compensation for damage caused by a traffic accident of a stolen motor vehicle and the right of recovery after paying the rescue expenses in advance.
II. Evolution of the Provisions
This article is developed on the basis of the provisions of Article 52 of the original Tort Liability Law. Article 52 of the Law stipulates: "In the event of a traffic accident causing damage to a stolen, robbed or snatched motor vehicle, the person who stole, robbed or snatched the motor vehicle shall be liable for compensation." If the insurance company pays the rescue expenses within the limit of the compulsory insurance liability of the motor vehicle, it has the right to recover from the person responsible for the traffic accident. On the basis of this article, this article adds provisions on the allocation of responsibility in cases where the thief, robber or snatcher and the user of the motor vehicle are not the same person, which is more comprehensive and comprehensive than before.
This article is not a complete legal provision, and the liability of the "motor vehicle party" is still subject to determination in accordance with Article 76 of the Road Traffic Safety Law. When a theft, robbery or snatching of a motor vehicle causes damage in a traffic accident, the owner or manager of the motor vehicle has lost the operating interests and control of the motor vehicle, so it should not be liable as the owner of the motor vehicle. At this time, the thief, robber or snatcher becomes the owner of the motor vehicle, and the status of the owner is not lost with the use of the motor vehicle by others, although the thief may hand over the motor vehicle to the user of the motor vehicle for use due to leasing, borrowing, etc., and lose the operating interests and operational control, based on the negative evaluation of the illegal and criminal acts, this article clarifies that the two shall be jointly and severally liable for the liability of the "motor vehicle party".
3. Interpretation of Provisions
This article is a provision on the liability for traffic accidents involving theft and robbery of motor vehicles.
Theft, robbery or snatching of another person's motor vehicle is an illegal or criminal act that infringes upon the property of others, and if a traffic accident occurs while in possession of the motor vehicle and causes damage to others, the person who steals, robs or robs shall bear the liability for damages, not the owner or manager of the motor vehicle. The provisions of this article shall also apply to the occurrence of a traffic accident causing injury in the course of stealing, robbing or snatching another person's motor vehicle.
Compared with the content of Article 52 of the Tort Liability Law, the content of paragraph 1 of this article adds that "if the person who steals, robs or robs the motor vehicle and the user of the motor vehicle are not the same person, and the damage caused by a traffic accident is the responsibility of one party to the motor vehicle, the thief, robber or snatcher and the user of the motor vehicle shall bear joint and several liability". The implication of this provision is that the person who steals, robs, or robs hands over the illegally occupied motor vehicle of another person to the user for use, resulting in a situation where the illegal possessor and the user are not the same person, which includes not only handing over the illegally occupied motor vehicle to others for use, but also transferring the illegally occupied motor vehicle to others for use with or without compensation. In the event of a traffic accident causing damage under such circumstances, the responsibility of the party to the motor vehicle shall be borne jointly and severally liable by the person who steals, robs or robs the person who has committed the motor vehicle and the user of the motor vehicle, and the person in illegal possession shall not be liable because the motor vehicle has been transferred.
The situation where the insurer advances the rescue expenses within the limit of the liability of the compulsory motor vehicle insurance refers to the situation where the accident causes damage to the person caused by the theft, robbery or snatching of another person's motor vehicle, and the subject of tort liability cannot be found, the insurer of the compulsory motor vehicle insurance shall and actually pays the rescue expenses in advance. If the subject of tort liability is found, the insurer has the right to recover from it.
4. Cases
Shen Moufu v. Wu Moubo et al., a motor vehicle traffic accident liability dispute
Facts: Wu Moubo and Shen Moufu had a traffic accident, resulting in damage to two vehicles and injuries to passenger Xiao Mourong. Wu Moubo bears full responsibility for the accident. The vehicle driven by Wu Moubo was the proceeds of theft, and the registered owner of the vehicle was Huang, and he had purchased compulsory motor vehicle traffic accident liability insurance with an insurance company. Shen Moufu sued the court, requesting that Wu Moubo, Huang, and an insurance company be ordered to compensate for losses. The court of first instance held that, according to article 52 of the Tort Liability Law, the defendant Wu Moubo should be liable for the loss of the plaintiff Shen Moufu, so it ruled that Wu Moubo should compensate the plaintiff Shen Moufu for the repair costs of the vehicle, and the insurance company did not need to bear the liability for compensation. Shen Moufu was dissatisfied with the first-instance judgment and appealed, requesting that the insurance company be liable for compensation for vehicle repair costs within the liability limit of the compulsory motor vehicle traffic accident liability insurance. The court of second instance held that, according to article 52 of the Tort Liability Law, what Shen Moufu claimed in this case was the maintenance cost of the vehicle, not the rescue cost of personal injury, so the first-instance judgment found that Shen Moufu was liable for compensation for the property loss caused by the traffic accident involved in the case, which was not improper and the law was correctly applied.
5. Analysis
This case involves the determination of the subject of responsibility in the event of a traffic accident caused by the theft of a motor vehicle. Someone else is driving a stolen motor vehicle, completely contrary to the will of the owner of the motor vehicle. At this time, the owner of the motor vehicle can neither complete the actual operation control nor enjoy the interest in the motor vehicle, and the thief is the operator and the owner of the operation benefit of the motor vehicle. In view of this, article 52 of the Tort Liability Law stipulates that in the event of a traffic accident caused by the theft of a motor vehicle, the thief shall be liable for compensation, and if the insurance company pays the rescue expenses in advance within the scope of the insurance, it shall have the right to recover the liability for the traffic accident. Article 1215 of the Civil Code improves this rule on the basis of Article 52 of the Tort Liability Law, stipulating that the thief shall be liable for compensation, and if the thief and the user are not the same person, the thief and the user shall be jointly and severally liable, and the insurance company shall have the right to recover the rescue costs. In this case, Wu Moubo stole Huang's motor vehicle, and in the event of a traffic accident, Wu Moubo should bear the responsibility for the motor vehicle traffic accident, and Huang did not bear any responsibility.