Related theme articles: Recently, after the court of Xinbei District in Changzhou City, Jiangsu Province made a judgment on this case, various disputes arose. After the first-instance judgment of the court was disclosed, it caused controversy in all sectors: The wife of the car owner whose car was stolen pointed at the accident vehicle that had been returned to them and said: We have no behavior or fault in the entire traffic accident, but we are required to compensate.
The dependents filed a lawsuit for compensation. Zhou Weifeng showed his purchase invoice, driving license, and theft certificate issued by the public security organs to the police, intending to retrieve the vehicle. The traffic police decided to temporarily detain the vehicle because the case was under investigation. Half a year later, the traffic police returned the vehicle.
The plaintiff's agent believed that subscribing to "Compulsory Traffic Insurance" is the legal obligation of the motor vehicle owner or manager. Due to the defendant's failure to fulfill the obligation, the victim of the traffic accident lost the right to request the insurance company to bear the compensation responsibility within the limit of "Compulsory Traffic Insurance". The defendant's fault led to the loss of the plaintiff's rights, so they should bear the compensation responsibility.
Article 16, paragraph 3 of the "Regulations on Compulsory Insurance for Motor Vehicle Traffic Accidents" stipulates: "If the insured motor vehicle is confirmed lost by the public security organ, the compulsory insurance contract for motor vehicle traffic accidents can be terminated, and the cancellation procedures can be handled." This shows that the law allows the owner to abandon the risk of the stolen vehicle.
Viewpoint one: If the owner of the vehicle has reported the theft and got confirmation from the public security organs, should they continue to buy "Compulsory Traffic Insurance"? If the thief drives the stolen vehicle for more than ten years, should the owner still pay the insurance premium for more than ten years? Following this logic, every household should keep their kitchen knives well, otherwise, if they are stolen and used to kill someone, the "knife owner" would also bear relevant responsibilities?
Zhou Weifeng stated: The defendant parked the vehicle in the community to prepare for selling it as a second-hand car, not deliberately not buying "Compulsory Traffic Insurance". According to Article 39 of the "Regulations on Compulsory Insurance for Motor Vehicle Traffic Accidents": "If you fail to subscribe to the compulsory insurance for motor vehicle traffic accidents as required, you will be fined twice the minimum liability limit insurance premium that should be paid according to the regulations..." rather than bearing the compensation responsibility.
Although there are provisions that if a motor vehicle is stolen and causes damage in a traffic accident, the perpetrator should bear the compensation responsibility, and the owner of the stolen motor vehicle does not bear the compensation responsibility. However, the plaintiff in this case claimed that the defendant did not renew the "Compulsory Traffic Insurance" after its expiration, and required them to bear the compensation responsibility within the limit of "Compulsory Traffic Insurance".
Article 24 of the "Regulations on Compulsory Insurance for Motor Vehicle Traffic Accidents" stipulates: "The state establishes a road traffic accident social assistance fund. In the following circumstances, the funeral expenses of the casualties in road traffic accidents and part or all of the rescue expenses shall be prepaid by the assistance fund, and the management agency of the assistance fund has the right to claim compensation from the responsible person for the road traffic accident: 1. The rescue expenses exceed the liability limit of the compulsory insurance for motor vehicle traffic accidents; 2. The perpetrator's motor vehicle did not participate in the compulsory insurance for motor vehicle traffic accidents; 3. The motor vehicle fled after the accident." These Regulations also stipulate that the sources of the assistance fund include extraction from the "Compulsory Traffic Insurance" premium income at a certain ratio.
On June 24, 2009, the court publicly tried this case.
Editor's note: When Zhou Weifeng went with the traffic police to see his stolen vehicle, he found that the license plate number had been changed, and the color had also been changed from black to white.
Legal link:
Zhou Weifeng stated that in the second half of 2008, his company went bankrupt, and after being laid off, he planned to sell his vehicle. On November 7, 2008, the "Compulsory Traffic Insurance" for the vehicle had expired, but Zhou Weifeng thought that since the vehicle was parked in the community and not on the road, he did not purchase it.
On May 21, 2009, Gu Bingying and her daughter sued Zhou Weifeng in the Xinbei District Court of Changzhou City, demanding that the defendant compensate the plaintiff with 110,000 yuan for death compensation within the minimum limit of the "Compulsory Traffic Insurance" that should have been subscribed.
Zhou Weifeng believed that although he was the owner of the vehicle, the vehicle was stolen by others and caused an accident. He and the deceased were both victims, and his relatives should claim compensation from the car thief and the perpetrator who fled the scene.
When the traffic police investigated Zhou Weifeng, instead of panicking, he was overjoyed that the vehicle had been located. On the night of December 11, 2008, the vehicle he parked in the community was stolen, and he reported it to the local police station, who issued him a theft certificate.
批复 from the Supreme People's Court on the issue of who should bear the damages for traffic accidents caused by stolen vehicles: The perpetrator who uses a stolen vehicle to cause an accident should legally bear the damages for the material losses caused to the victim, and the owner of the stolen vehicle does not bear the damages.
Police officers rushed to the scene and sent Chen Zhenggui to the hospital for emergency treatment, but he died despite medical efforts.
(II) The insured motor vehicle has been registered for suspension;
In December 2008, his family began renovating their new housing after the demolition of their old house. At noon on December 26, Chen Zhenggui went to the market to buy materials, and his electric bike collided with a white sedan with the license plate number Su D05926.
Because the driver fled, the police decided to capture the perpetrator based on the license plate number. However, when the police legally summoned the owner of the Su D05926 vehicle, he looked bewildered and provided witnesses to prove that his vehicle was parked in the garage at the time of the incident.
Various opinions
Finding the owner was complicated
However, the Road Traffic Safety Law has been implemented for many years, but the specific measures regarding traffic accident relief funds in many places have yet to be introduced. From a national perspective, apart from the principle regulations on traffic accident relief funds in the Road Traffic Safety Law and the Regulations on Compulsory Insurance for Motor Vehicle Traffic Accidents, few local governments have implemented this system according to their own situations.
The plaintiff's agent believes: When the judicial interpretation of the Supreme Court was formulated, neither the Road Traffic Safety Law nor the Regulations on Compulsory Insurance for Motor Vehicle Traffic Accidents had been implemented. Article 2 of the Regulations on Compulsory Insurance for Motor Vehicle Traffic Accidents published on March 21, 2006, clearly stipulated: "The owner or manager of a motor vehicle shall subscribe to compulsory insurance for motor vehicle traffic accidents in accordance with the provisions of the Road Traffic Safety Law"; Article 19 stipulated: "After the contract period of compulsory insurance for motor vehicle traffic accidents expires, the policyholder shall promptly renew the insurance." This accident occurred on December 26, 2008, the expiration date of the "Compulsory Traffic Insurance" for the involved vehicle was November 7 of the same year, and the theft date was December 12, 2008. That is, the insurance expiration date came before the theft date. The defendant's behavior violated the provisions of the Regulations on Compulsory Insurance for Motor Vehicle Traffic Accidents, and their behavior was at fault.
Paying the "Compulsory Traffic Insurance" for the vehicle as required by law not only protects the property of the vehicle owner, but also effectively safeguards the lives and property of others. This is the legislative intent of why our country established "Compulsory Traffic Insurance" as a statutory type of insurance.
Subsequently, the police identified the real license plate of the vehicle as Su DS8250, and the owner was Zhou Weifeng, who lived in Changzhou.
Various views
Searching for the owner had twists and turns
"Isn't your vehicle insured? Can the insurance company compensate first?" Gu Bingying asked Zhou Weifeng.
Zhou Weifeng also believed that stealing a motor vehicle is itself an illegal act that should be punished by law. As the owner of the vehicle, the defendant had already lost control over the vehicle. In such a situation, if a traffic accident occurs and the vehicle owner is still required to bear the compensation responsibility on behalf of the thief, it does not conform to the fairness principle of our country's Civil Law.
Experts suggest that city-level governments across the country should quickly establish a traffic accident relief fund system. The source of funds can follow the principle of Article 25 of the Regulations on Compulsory Insurance for Motor Vehicle Traffic Accidents, raising funds through methods such as extracting a certain proportion of funds from the premiums of compulsory insurance for motor vehicle traffic accidents, fines for owners and managers of motor vehicles who fail to subscribe as required, funds recovered by the management agency of the relief fund from the responsible persons for road traffic accidents, and interest on the relief fund. In addition, the government can also allocate part of the budget each year, use the proceeds from the auction of motor vehicle license plates, and incorporate fines for hit-and-run offenders into the traffic accident relief fund, promote social donations for the traffic accident relief fund, and obtain sources of funding.
The court held: The right to life of citizens is protected by law, and the plaintiffs, as close relatives of the deceased, have the right to demand compensation for losses.
Although the defendant in this case was unrelated to the occurrence of this accident, paying "Compulsory Traffic Insurance" is the legal obligation that the owner of a motor vehicle should fulfill. After the "Compulsory Traffic Insurance" expired, the defendant should have renewed it in a timely manner but failed to do so, and their behavior was at fault. This fault resulted in the victim losing the right to require the insurance company to bear the compensation responsibility within the scope of claims. Therefore, the court ruled that the defendant should replace the insurance company in bearing the compensation responsibility for the plaintiff's losses within the liability limit of "Compulsory Traffic Insurance", and sentenced to compensate the two plaintiffs with 110,000 yuan for death compensation.
Zhou Weifeng appealed against the first-instance judgment to the Intermediate People's Court of Changzhou City, and the second-instance judgment has not yet been made.
After the incident, Gu Bingying, the wife of Chen Zhenggui, believed that the traffic police had found the owner of the involved vehicle, Zhou Weifeng, and he should bear the compensation responsibility.
After the accident, the driver abandoned the vehicle and fled.
A traffic accident resulting in death occurred due to a stolen vehicle. Who should the relatives of the deceased sue for compensation? The perpetrator (the thief) fled; the owner believed that the vehicle was stolen, and he lost control over the vehicle and had no fault in the accident, so he should not bear the responsibility.
Defendant Zhou Weifeng believed: During the period when his vehicle was stolen and involved in a traffic accident, according to the judicial interpretation of the Supreme People's Court announced on June 18, 1999, "Regarding the Issue of Who Should Bear the Compensation Responsibility for Traffic Accidents Caused by Stolen Vehicles," it states: "If a traffic accident is caused by using a stolen vehicle, resulting in material losses to the victim, the perpetrator should bear the compensation responsibility according to law, and the owner of the stolen vehicle should not bear the compensation responsibility." This interpretation indicates that when a stolen vehicle causes a traffic accident, the owner of the stolen vehicle should not bear the compensation responsibility, and the victim of the traffic accident can only legally claim compensation from the perpetrator.
Article 19: After the term of the compulsory insurance contract for motor vehicle traffic accidents expires, the policyholder shall promptly renew the insurance and provide the insurance policy of the previous year.
Despite different opinions from all sectors on this case, their controversial views precisely show that vehicle insurance is an important channel for relieving the rights and interests of both parties involved in traffic accidents.
The traffic patrol department made a responsibility determination for the accident: "The perpetrator who fled the scene bears the main responsibility, and Chen Zhenggui bears the secondary responsibility."
First-instance judgment orders the owner to compensate 110,000 yuan
Article 16: The policyholder may not terminate the compulsory insurance contract for motor vehicle traffic accidents, except in the following circumstances:
Article 3: The compulsory insurance for motor vehicle traffic accidents referred to in these Regulations means the compulsory liability insurance where the insurance company compensates for personal injuries and property losses suffered by victims other than the personnel of the insured vehicle and the insured person themselves within the liability limit when a road traffic accident involving the insured vehicle occurs.
(III) The insured motor vehicle is confirmed lost by the public security organ.