The Supreme People's Court promulgated the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on the Application of the Tort Liability Part of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China (I), which will come into force on September 27, 2024.
Today (26th), the Supreme People's Court issued a judicial interpretation on tort liability in the Civil Code, focusing on the new situations and disputes that need to be resolved after the implementation of the Civil Code.
How can families recover compensation in child trafficking cases?
Explicit support for compensating guardians for reasonable expenses in finding their relatives
In recent years, the abduction and abduction of children and women with intellectual disabilities have attracted widespread attention from society, and these criminal acts not only seriously infringe on the personal rights and interests of children, but also bring huge mental pain and economic burden to the victims' families. Relatives often spend a lot of time and money searching for their relatives, so can they be compensated for the expenses incurred in searching for relatives?
The judicial interpretation clarifies that if a ward is illegally removed from guardianship, and the guardian requests compensation for reasonable expenses and other property losses incurred to restore the guardianship, the people's court shall support it.
Clarify the criteria for determining serious mental harm
In addition, the judicial interpretation also clarifies the criteria for determining serious mental damage. It is provided that where a ward is unlawfully removed from guardianship, causing serious harm to the relationship between parents and children or other close relatives, it shall be found to be serious mental harm as provided for in the Civil Code.
How to determine the liability of the ward for infringement?
For a long time, the protection of the rights and interests of left-behind children in rural areas, minor children from divorced families, and "school bullying" have been widely concerned by the society. The judicial interpretation of the tort liability section of the Civil Code released today further regulates the issue of the liability of wards for tort and provides clearer legal guidance for the protection of the rights and interests of minors.
In practice, there are also cases where a non-close relative serves as a guardian and the ward himself or herself has property, in which case the sole responsibility of the guardian may lead to the unwillingness of the non-close relative to serve as the guardian, which is not conducive to the growth of the minor.
In order to solve this problem, the judicial interpretation stipulates that when the people's court orders the guardian to bear responsibility, it shall make it clear in the judgment that "the compensation fee may be paid from the ward's property first, and the insufficient part shall be paid by the guardian". At the same time, in order to ensure the healthy growth of the ward, the judicial interpretation limits the payment of compensation expenses from the ward's property, stipulating that "the necessary living expenses of the ward and the expenses necessary for the completion of compulsory education shall be retained".
Who will be responsible for the accident of the children after the divorce of the husband and wife?
Parents are the guardians of minor children, and after the husband and wife divorce, who will be responsible for the infringement of minor children? In practice, divorced couples often claim that they are not responsible or less liable on the grounds that they are not living with their minor children. In response to this unfair situation of "whoever contributes is responsible", the judicial interpretation responded.
It is clarified that the divorced couple shall be jointly responsible for the infringement of minor children
The judicial interpretation makes it clear that if after the divorce of a husband and wife, the minor children cause harm to others, and the infringed party requests that the divorced couple jointly bear tort liability, the people's court shall support it in accordance with law. Where one party claims not to bear or less responsibility on the grounds that he or she has not lived with the child, the people's court will not support it. Stepparents who have not formed a relationship of upbringing and education with the minor do not bear the tort liability of the guardian, and the biological parents of the child bear responsibility.
This can not only better protect the legitimate rights and interests of the infringed party, but also encourage divorced parents to pay more attention to the growth and education of their children, so as to avoid neglecting their guardianship duties due to divorce.
The trustee guardian is liable within the scope of the fault
The judicial interpretation also clarifies that the person entrusted with the performance of guardianship duties shall be jointly liable with the guardian who bears full responsibility within the scope of his fault.
Punish school bullying and reasonably determine the responsibilities of educational institutions
In recent years, school bullying and other illegal crimes have occurred from time to time, and judicial interpretations have also made provisions on the punishment of campus bullying and the reasonable determination of the responsibility of educational institutions. It is clarified that if a student suffers personal injury from a person outside the school on campus, the third party who committed the tortious act shall be the first responsible entity, and the educational institution that has failed to fulfill its management duties shall bear the supplementary liability of the second.
According to the judge, where a third party and an educational institution are joint defendants, the people's court should reflect in the judgment the priority of the educational institution's subsequent enforcement of supplementary liability.
Accidents occur when a vehicle is lent without compulsory traffic insurance
Is the owner responsible?
According to the laws of mainland China, motor vehicles must be insured with compulsory motor vehicle traffic accident liability insurance before they can go on the road, which is what we often call compulsory traffic insurance. However, in life, there are always some car owners who have a fluke mentality and choose not to buy compulsory traffic insurance. So if you hand over a vehicle that has not been insured with compulsory traffic insurance to someone else for use, will the car be mainly liable for compensation in the event of an accident?
In this regard, the judicial interpretation clarifies that in the event of a traffic accident involving a motor vehicle that has not been insured with compulsory traffic insurance in accordance with the law, and the insurance obligor and the person responsible for the traffic accident are not the same person, the insurance obligor shall be jointly liable with the person responsible for the traffic accident within the limit of the liability of the compulsory motor vehicle insurance.
After getting out of the car, my car slipped and hit me, who will pay?
"My car hit me" seems unlikely, but in real life, such cases are not uncommon, such as the driver got out of the car without stopping the vehicle halfway, and the vehicle slid and caused his death or injury, and the driver of the vehicle or his family often had disputes with the insurance company because of the payment of compulsory motor vehicle insurance and commercial third-party liability insurance. For such cases, there is some controversy over whether the insurance company will pay compensation or not.
In this regard, the judicial interpretation has made it clear and unified the adjudication standards, stipulating that if the driver of a motor vehicle leaves the vehicle and is injured by the collision or crushing of the vehicle due to his own fault such as not taking braking measures, the driver cannot "infringe on himself" because he has actual control over the motor vehicle, and the driver is not the subject of the third-party insurance, and shall not be compensated in accordance with the compulsory traffic insurance and the commercial third-party liability insurance of the motor vehicle.
According to reports, this regulation is also intended to urge drivers to check the vehicle before leaving the vehicle to ensure that the vehicle is parked legally and safely.
Who bears the responsibility for the traffic accident of the assembled and scrapped vehicle?
According to the provisions of the Civil Code, if a motor vehicle is assembled or has reached the scrapping standard is transferred by sale or other means, and the damage caused by a traffic accident occurs, the transferor and the transferee shall be jointly and severally liable.
Who is responsible for the injury of a forbidden fierce dog?
In order to standardize the behavior of dog breeding and ensure public safety, the judicial interpretation is clear, and it is forbidden to raise fierce dogs that cause damage to others, regardless of whether the victim is at fault or not, the breeder should bear full responsibility.
The judicial interpretation stipulates that where a dangerous animal such as a fierce dog that is prohibited from being raised causes harm to others, and the animal keeper or manager claims not to be liable or has reduced responsibility, the people's court will not support it. For example, a city's dog management regulations prohibit the breeding of Tibetan mastiffs. The keeper violated this regulation by keeping a Tibetan mastiff. When a Tibetan mastiff bites another person, the keeper should be liable for compensation regardless of the management measures taken by the keeper and whether the victim has teased the Tibetan mastiff.
Damage caused by a high-altitude projectile
What kind of legal consequences to bear
How to determine the responsibility of the thrower who can't find it?
Today, the Supreme People's Court issued the judicial interpretation of the tort liability section of the Civil Code, which further refines the issue of liability for high-altitude projectiles, and clarifies the subject of liability and the division of responsibility for damage caused by high-altitude projectiles.
The crime of throwing objects from a height is a new crime added to the Amendment (11) of the Criminal Law, which came into effect on March 1, 2021, stipulating: throwing objects from buildings or other high-altitude objects, if the circumstances are serious, shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not more than one year, short-term detention or controlled release, and/or a fine. Where conduct in the preceding paragraph simultaneously constitutes other crimes, follow the provisions for the heavier punishment at trial and sentencing.
In addition, according to the provisions of the Civil Code of the Mainland, if a high-altitude thrown or falling object causes damage to others, the infringer shall also bear the corresponding civil liability for compensation. In some cases of infringement caused by high-altitude throwing or falling objects, the real infringer is not found in the end, so who should be held liable in this case?
The judicial interpretation makes it clear that if a high-altitude thrown object or falling object causes damage to others, the specific infringer is the first responsible entity, and the property management service enterprise that fails to take the necessary safety and security measures shall bear the supplementary liability in the second.
When it is clear that the specific thrower cannot be found, the property and the potential infringer are in priority of liability
In practice, it is not uncommon for a specific infringer not to be found after a high-altitude throwing incident, and in order to ensure that the victim receives relief, according to the provisions of the Civil Code, the property that violates the safety and security obligation and the user of the building that may cause harm will bear the corresponding liability, so how to divide the responsibility between the two and who will bear the responsibility first? The previous law did not clearly stipulate it, but this judicial interpretation has also clarified and refined.
Provisions: If it is not possible to determine the specific infringer who caused the injury caused by the high-altitude throwing object or falling object, the property management service enterprise and other building managers who have not taken the necessary safety and security measures shall first bear the responsibility corresponding to their fault. The user of the building who may have caused the damage shall be appropriately compensated for the damage of the remaining part of the infringed party. After assuming responsibility, the above-mentioned responsible entity has the right to recover compensation from the specific infringer determined in the future.
According to reports, the premise is that the user of the building who may have caused the harm is liable for compensation only if all kinds of investigation methods have been exhausted and no specific infringer can be found, which is a major premise.
Jiangsu News Channel [News Clue Prize Collection 🎁] Hotline: 025-83195110 Mailbox: [email protected]
Comprehensive|CCTV Editor|Wei Wei pays attention