Case Introduction:

In May 2004, while driving under the influence of alcohol, Zhang collided with pedestrian Xu, causing serious injury to Xu. After being identified by the local traffic police squadron, Zhang was fully responsible for the accident. After investigation, the car involved in the accident was purchased by Zhang from Li in 2003, and both parties signed a car purchase agreement. Zhang has already paid for the car, but the vehicle has not yet been transferred.

In June 2004, after Xu was discharged from the hospital, but failed to negotiate with Zhang, he was sued to the court with Li, the registered owner of the accident car, and Zhang, the perpetrator, as defendants, demanding that both parties bear joint and several liability.

Key issues in this case:

In the case of different vehicle registrants and actual controllers, who should pay for the traffic accident and whether they jointly bear joint and several liability.

Lawyer evaluation:

Firstly, there are two legal relationships in this case,

Firstly, Zhang and Xu constitute a civil infringement legal relationship;

Secondly, Zhang and Li form a sales contract relationship. According to relevant laws and regulations, Zhang is the direct infringer of a traffic accident and should be liable for personal injury compensation for Xu. However, should the vehicle registrant Li bear joint liability?

Before distinguishing responsibilities, the owner of the motor vehicle must be confirmed. If the transfer registration is not processed after the sale and delivery of motor vehicles, who is the owner of the motor vehicle? Some people believe that the owner of a motor vehicle is the head of household registered with the motor vehicle management authority. The author believes that this viewpoint is one-sided. As a special movable property, motor vehicles have their own characteristics compared to the transfer of ownership of general movable property. Generally, the delivery of movable property is the method of publicity, while the method of publicity for motor vehicles has caused great controversy. Some people believe that China adopts the principle of registration taking effect, which is to use registration as the basis for whether a contract becomes effective. The author believes that China has adopted registration antagonism in this regard,

The reason is:

1. Although motor vehicles have special characteristics, they are still movable property and should still follow the public notice method of transferring ownership through delivery of movable property. Its uniqueness lies only in that they cannot confront third parties without registration;

2. From the Contract Law, Contract Interpretation (1), and the Motor Vehicle Registration Regulations, it can be seen that China adopts registration adversarial doctrine for motor vehicles. Therefore, the author believes that the owner of a motor vehicle refers to the person who actually has complete control and disposal rights over the motor vehicle.

Therefore, if a road traffic accident occurs after the delivery of the vehicle, although the transfer procedures have not been completed, the ownership has been transferred to the buyer, and the responsibility should also be borne by the buyer. The seller will no longer bear any related responsibilities arising from this. In addition, According to the letter issued by the Supreme People's Court on December 31, 2001 (2001) Min Yi Ta Zi No. 32) to the Jiangsu Provincial High People's Court on the request for instructions on whether the original owner of a car is responsible for a traffic accident caused by a series of car purchases without completing the transfer procedures, it is clearly stated that: The serial car purchase did not go through the transfer procedures. As the vehicle has been delivered, the original owner cannot control the operation of the vehicle or obtain benefits from the operation of the vehicle. Therefore, the original owner should not be liable for damages caused by motor vehicle traffic accidents. Therefore, regardless of legal principles or regulations, the vehicle registrant (original owner) should not be liable for damages caused by motor vehicle traffic accidents.

Chen Xin