Automotive damage liability and contributory negligence

Author: Yu Min
Publisher:
Publish Date: 2004-11-01
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, 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 negligent, they must bear the liability. Some scholars call this no-fault liability, while others consider it negligence presumption liability. Due to China being in a 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 laws need further improvement, and cultivating public awareness of road traffic safety and the of abiding by traffic rules still requires time. These factors have made road traffic accidents 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 people have 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" against 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 within China's legal community about whether special tort liability principles should be applied to motor vehicle damage compensation disputes and whether negligence contribution should be applicable 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 when they hit pedestrians. To provide a theoretical basis for the legal community to correctly handle 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 modesty, will explain the nature of motor vehicle damage compensation liability and the function of negligence contribution, combining theory and practice, as the research topic of this study. The entire content of this study will address the question of legal fairness, but here are a few points for illustration.
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 damages caused by torts. 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," "human-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 relationships, and without statutory obligations, legal responsibility does not arise. Those crowns and passionate arguments, along with their confident criticisms, are entirely the self-centered and self-satisfied creations of the fabricators, completely unrelated to legal responsibility.
Second, motor vehicle drivers must abide by the duty of care in driving. Road traffic is a place that embodies equality before the law for all. Whether it is motor vehicles or pedestrians, everyone must equally abide by traffic rules. Here, all differences between people, such as gender, occupation, or status, are abstracted away, and only the way they participate in road traffic has significance. The way a person participates in road traffic determines the type and degree of care duty they must fulfill, and once an accident occurs, the fulfillment of their care duty 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 operators of high-speed vehicles, requiring 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 walk, and among pedestrians, there are those who are qualified to drive motor vehicles. Therefore, in road traffic, the duty of care must be determined by the means of transport. In road traffic, motor vehicle drivers must not only abide by traffic regulations for motor vehicles (traffic rules) but also driving regulations (driving rules), 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 laws. If you are a motor vehicle driver, you must honestly fulfill your professional duty of care. Do not be dissatisfied that the law requires you to abide by traffic rules as well as 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 against." This is the only answer the law can give to all road traffic participants, including those with dissatisfaction. Driving a motor vehicle but refusing to fulfill the duty of care in 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 have not, it is the fault of the driving school. If the national competent authorities have not required driving schools to provide this education, it is the negligence of the authorities. The state has the responsibility to educate all motor vehicle drivers about their professional 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 way a person participates in road traffic will make road traffic participants always mindful of their "role" and act according to the care duty required by law for that "role," without comparing themselves to others. Because the law has different requirements for the fulfillment of care duties for different subjects, only by continuously improving the level of care duty can one avoid harm and avoid liability. In this way, improving safety care standards 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 suppressing 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 also involves "high technology." The determination of legal responsibility 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. 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 (such as 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. Additionally, 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 when injured abroad cannot be effectively protected. At the same time, legal responses to injuries suffered by foreign citizens in China will also arise 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 gain a clearer understanding of motor vehicle damage compensation liability, we have written this "introduction," hoping it can be of use.