Automotive Damage Liability and Comparative Negligence--The Essence of Legal Fairness and Its Realization Process

Author: Yu Min
Publisher:
Publish Date: 2006-04-01
Features: To address the social issues arising from the use of motor vehicles, countries worldwide have applied modified special tort liability principles to disputes over motor vehicle damage compensation. That is, for damages caused by motor vehicles, the tortfeasor does not need to have subjective negligence, nor does the victim need to prove it; as long as the tortfeasor cannot refute that they were not negligent, they must bear the liability. Some scholars call this no-fault liability, while others argue it is negligence presumption liability.
As China is in a period of high economic growth, the ratio of road construction to motor vehicle growth is disproportionately large. The quantity and quality of road traffic safety facilities are poor, traffic regulations need further improvement, and cultivating public awareness of road safety and the conscious compliance with traffic rules still requires time. Due to these factors, road traffic accidents have become a severe social issue in China today. To eliminate traffic disasters, China formulated and implemented the Road Traffic Safety Law on May 1, 2004.
In the relationship between motor vehicles and pedestrians, the Chinese public has shown an unprecedented "equality" desire. In just a few months, experts and scholars from all walks of life have published opinions, criticizing the law's "bias" toward pedestrians and "harshness" toward motor vehicles, claiming it undermines social fairness and weakens the authority of the law. In reality, these opinions merely reflect the long-standing debates and doubts in China's legal community about whether special tort liability principles should apply to motor vehicle damage compensation disputes and whether negligence contribution should be applied to what are termed no-fault liability torts. These issues have had adverse effects on practice, with some local regulations even stipulating that motor vehicles could be exempt from liability under certain conditions.
To provide a theoretical basis for the correct handling of motor vehicle damage compensation disputes, achieve unified understanding across the nation, and mobilize the entire population to work together to reverse the high incidence of road traffic accidents, the author, without hesitation, will explain the nature of motor vehicle damage compensation liability and the role of negligence contribution, combining theory and practice as the research topic. The entire content of this study will address the question of legal fairness, but here are a few key points:
First, tort law is a system designed to fairly distribute damages caused by torts. The purpose of establishing the tort law system in civil law is precisely to fairly distribute such damages. Tort liability is a legal responsibility, and the burden of legal responsibility must be based on statutory obligations. Without statutory obligations, legal responsibility does not arise. Although motor vehicle damage compensation liability is a modified special tort liability, it only differs from general torts in specific aspects (such as the criteria for liability and the burden of proof), but it does not make the basis of liability unrelated to statutory obligations. Some people first bestow "humanistic care," "people-centered," and "protection of the weak" on motor vehicle damage compensation liability, then passionately and eloquently criticize its "unfairness." However, these "media legal scholars" lack basic legal knowledge, such as the fact that all legal responsibilities must be based on rights and obligations, and without statutory obligations, legal responsibility does not arise. Those crowns and passionate arguments, along with their confident criticisms, are entirely self-serving and self-indulgent, completely unrelated to legal responsibility.
Second, motor vehicle drivers must comply with the duty of care in driving. Road traffic is a place that embodies equality before the law, where both motor vehicles and pedestrians must follow traffic rules equally. Here, all differences between people, such as gender, occupation, and status, are abstracted away, leaving only the manner in which they participate in road traffic as meaningful. The way a person participates in road traffic determines the type and degree of care they must exercise, and once an accident occurs, the fulfillment of their duty of care becomes the basis for determining their liability. This is the only fair standard in the handling of road traffic accidents. Specifically, when a person walks on the road, they bear the duty of care of an ordinary person; when they drive a motor vehicle on the road, the law treats them as an operator of a high-speed vehicle, requiring them to fulfill the safety duty of care in motor vehicle driving. In road traffic, the role of each participant is not fixed. Motor vehicle drivers may also walk, and among pedestrians, there may be those qualified to drive motor vehicles. Therefore, in road traffic, the duty of care must be determined by the means of transportation. In road traffic, motor vehicle drivers must not only comply with traffic regulations (rules of driving) but also with driving regulations (rules of driving), which is the additional duty of care they must bear compared to pedestrians. This duty includes the requirement to properly handle situations where other road traffic participants (not only pedestrians but also motor vehicles) violate traffic regulations.
As a motor vehicle driver, you must honestly fulfill your professional duty of care. Do not be dissatisfied with the law requiring you to follow both traffic regulations and driving regulations in addition to traffic rules. If you think this is "unfair" to you, you can put down the steering wheel and join the ranks of those who are "biased against." This is the only way the law can achieve fairness and provide a response to all road traffic participants, including those with dissatisfaction. Driving a motor vehicle but refusing to fulfill the duty of care required for driving and demanding that the law exempt you from half of your original obligations to treat you "equally" with pedestrians—is that fair?
Prohibiting emotionally charged individuals from entering road traffic is an important way to improve road traffic safety. This is one of the principles of traffic engineering. Every motor vehicle driver should have received this education during their driving training. If they haven’t, it is the fault of the driving school. If the competent authorities have not required driving schools to provide this education, it is the authorities’ negligence. The state has the responsibility to educate all motor vehicle drivers about their duty of care.
Third, a fair basis for liability determination is beneficial to eliminating road traffic disasters. Determining the duty of care based on the manner of participation in road traffic will make all participants constantly mindful of their "role" and act according to the legal requirements for that "role," without comparing themselves to others. Because the law has different requirements for the fulfillment of the duty of care for different objects, only by continuously improving the level of care can one avoid harm and avoid liability. As a result, raising the standard of safety care becomes the goal of every road traffic participant, and a good situation will be formed where the entire nation consciously maintains road traffic order. This is the role of motor vehicle damage compensation liability as a special tort in promptly and appropriately compensating victims and preventing harm.
Damage compensation liability, in its essence, is a normative regulation. Normative regulations can only be determined by the fundamental law of the field, i.e., the basic civil law, and must be operated by judges, which involves "high technology." The determination of legal responsibility is the process of achieving legal fairness, and without the creative efforts of judges, legal fairness is often unattainable. This also requires specialized training to perform. Moreover, such "professional handling" matters cannot be decided by public opinion or the emotions of some citizens, nor can they be determined by incompetent media legal scholars. Even administrative regulations (e.g., the Shenyang Measures) cannot violate them. This is a principle of the rule of law. If this principle is violated in any field, legal responses to social issues in that field will certainly be problematic.
Furthermore, the principle of damage compensation liability must align with international standards. As China’s international exchanges expand, the number of incidents where citizens suffer injuries abroad will continue to increase. If our damage compensation liability principles do not align with international standards, the legitimate rights and interests of Chinese citizens will not be effectively protected when they suffer harm abroad. At the same time, legal responses to injuries suffered by foreign citizens in China will also face issues.
Motor vehicle damage compensation is a highly specialized and theoretical field, but it is also a highly practical issue related to the safety of the public, requiring collective efforts from all citizens. Therefore, this study is aimed at the entire society. To help more people understand motor vehicle damage compensation liability more clearly, we have written this "introduction." We sincerely welcome the of the practice community and the severe criticism of all sectors regarding this study. We firmly believe that these efforts will promote the development of China’s motor vehicle damage compensation legal system and enhance the level of the rule of law in China.