Liability for Damage Caused by Motor Vehicles and Contributory Negligence: The Essence of Legal Fairness and Its Realization Process

Author: Yu Min
Publisher:
Publishing 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 motor vehicle damage compensation disputes. That is, for damages caused by motor vehicles, there is no need for the tortfeasor to have subjective negligence, nor is it required for the victim to prove it; as long as the tortfeasor cannot refute their own negligence, they must bear the liability. Some scholars call this no-fault liability, while others believe it is negligence presumption liability. Due to China's current period of high economic growth, the ratio of road construction to motor vehicle growth is excessively large, the quantity and quality of road traffic safety facilities are poor, traffic regulations need further improvement, and the cultivation of public road traffic safety awareness and the consciousness of abiding by traffic order still requires time. Among these factors, road traffic accidents have become a serious social issue in China. 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 people have shown an unprecedentedly astonishing "equality" desire. In just a few months, experts and scholars from all walks of life have published their views, criticizing the law's "bias" toward pedestrians and its "harshness" toward motor vehicles, claiming it undermines social fairness and weakens the authority of the law. In fact, these opinions merely reflect the long-standing debates and doubts in China's legal community about whether special tort liability principles should be applied to motor vehicle damage compensation disputes and whether negligence contributory should be applicable to no-fault liability torts. These issues have had a negative impact 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 a unified understanding across the country, and mobilize the whole nation to work together to reverse the high incidence of road traffic accidents, the author, without any hesitation, will explain the nature of motor vehicle damage compensation liability and the function of negligence contributory, as the topic of this study. The entire content of this study will address the question of legal fairness, and here are only a few points to highlight.
First, tort law is a system designed to fairly distribute the damages caused by torts. The purpose of establishing the tort law system in civil law is to fairly distribute the damages caused by torts. Tort liability is a legal liability, and the burden of legal liability must be based on statutory obligations. Without statutory obligations, legal liability does not arise. Although motor vehicle damage compensation liability is a modified special tort liability, it only differs from the handling of 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 crown motor vehicle damage compensation liability with such magnificent "crowns" as "humanistic care," "people-centered," and "protection of the weak," and then passionately criticize its "unfairness." However, these "media legal scholars" lack basic legal knowledge, such as the fact that all legal liabilities must be based on the relationship between rights and obligations, and without statutory obligations, legal liability does not arise. Those crowns and passionate arguments, as well as the confident criticism, are entirely the self-willed and self-satisfied fantasies of the inventors, completely unrelated to legal liability.
Second, motor vehicle drivers must abide by the duty of care in driving. Road traffic is a place that embodies equality before the law; whether it is motor vehicles or pedestrians, they must equally abide by traffic rules. Here, all differences among people, such as gender, occupation, and status, are abstracted away, and only the way they participate in road traffic has significance. A person's method of participating in road traffic determines the type and degree of care they must fulfill when participating in road traffic, and once a traffic accident occurs, the fulfillment of their care duty becomes the basis for determining their liability. This is the only fair benchmark 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 and requires them to fulfill the safety care duty of motor vehicle driving. In road traffic, the role of each road traffic participant is not fixed; motor vehicle drivers also have times when they walk, and among pedestrians, there are also those who are qualified to drive motor vehicles. Therefore, in road traffic, the duty of care must be determined by the means of transport used. In road traffic, motor vehicle drivers must not only abide by traffic rules (rules of driving) but also abide by driving rules (rules of driving), which is the additional duty of care they must bear compared to pedestrians. This duty includes appropriately handling the violations of road traffic regulations by other road traffic participants (not only pedestrians but also motor vehicles). If you are a motor vehicle driver, you must honestly fulfill your professional duty of care and should not be dissatisfied with the law requiring you to abide by both driving rules and driving rules. If you think this is "harsh" to you, you can put down the steering wheel and join the ranks of those who are "biased." This is the only answer the law can give to all road traffic participants, including those with dissatisfaction. Driving a motor vehicle but not fulfilling the duty of care required by the law, and demanding "equality" with pedestrians while exempting yourself from half of your original obligations, is fair? In road traffic, prohibiting emotionally charged individuals from participating in 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 such education during their driving training. If not, it is the fault of the driving school; if the competent authorities have not required driving schools to provide such education, it is the negligence of the authorities. The state is responsible for providing professional duty of care education to all motor vehicle drivers.
Third, a fair basis for determining liability is beneficial to the elimination of traffic disasters. Determining the duty of care based on the method of participating in road traffic will make road traffic participants always pay attention to their "role" and act according to the legal duty of care required 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 damage and thus avoid liability. As a result, improving the level 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 damage. Damage compensation liability, in its essence, is a normative rule. Normative rules can only be determined by the fundamental law of the field, i.e., the basic civil law, and must be operated by judges, which also involves "high technology." The determination of legal liability is the process of achieving legal fairness, and without the creative labor of judges, legal fairness is often unattainable. This also requires specialized training to perform and is a level of "professional handling" that cannot be determined by public opinion or the emotions of some citizens, nor can it be determined by incompetent media legal scholars. Even administrative regulations (such as the Shenyang Measures) cannot violate it. This is a principle of the rule of law. If this principle is violated in any field, the legal response to social issues in that field will certainly be problematic. Moreover, the principle of damage compensation liability must also consider international alignment. With the expansion of international exchanges in China, the number of Chinese citizens suffering accidental injuries abroad will continue to increase. If our damage compensation liability principles are not aligned with international standards, the legitimate rights and interests of Chinese citizens suffering damage abroad cannot be effectively protected. At the same time, the legal response to accidental injuries suffered by foreign citizens in China will also be problematic. Motor vehicle damage compensation is a highly specialized and theoretical field, but at the same time, it is a highly practical issue related to the road traffic safety of the people, requiring the collective resolution of the entire society. 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," hoping it can be effective. We sincerely accept the testing of practice on this study and wholeheartedly welcome severe criticism from all sectors of society. We firmly believe that these will promote the development of China's motor vehicle damage compensation legal system and enhance the level of China's rule-of-law construction.