Brief facts of the case

At 22:02 on June 11, 2023, Li drove car A and car B in a traffic accident, resulting in injuries to the passenger Sheng Moumou in car B. According to the traffic police department, Li bears all responsibility, the driver of car B is not responsible, and Sheng is not responsible. After the accident, Sheng Moumou went to the hospital for 7 days of hospitalization and was diagnosed with multiple rib fractures, spending a total of 8,000 yuan in hospitalization and outpatient fees. After evaluation, Sheng Moumou constituted a grade 10 disability. The owner of vehicle A involved in the accident was Wei, who had purchased commercial third-party insurance of 1 million yuan from an insurance company, and had not taken out compulsory traffic insurance. In January 2024, Sheng Moumou came to the court to sue for Li, Wei and an insurance company to compensate for medical expenses, disability compensation, nutrition, follow-up treatment fees, appraisal fees, lawyer fees, etc., totaling 130,000 yuan.

Defendant Li argued that if a motor vehicle that has not been insured with compulsory traffic insurance in accordance with the law causes damage in a traffic accident, when the insurance obligor is inconsistent with the infringer, the insurance obligor, that is, the owner Wei, should compensate within the liability limit of the compulsory traffic insurance. Defendant Wei argued that he was the lessor, and after the accident, the infringer Li had the main responsibility, and he only rented the vehicle, so he only accounted for a small part of the liability.

Heard by the courts

After trial, the court held that the vehicle A that caused the accident was not insured with compulsory traffic insurance, and the defendant Wei was the owner of the car and had a legal obligation to take out compulsory traffic insurance, and as an insurance obligor, the plaintiff could not obtain compensation within the scope of compensation due to the failure to take out compulsory traffic insurance, and he did not inform Li that the vehicle was not insured by compulsory traffic insurance when he leased the vehicle to Li, and the defendant Wei was at fault for the occurrence of the accident and damage, and should bear the liability for compensation; At the same time, the defendant Li, as a person with full capacity for civil conduct, failed to fulfill his duty of care when leasing a motor vehicle, failed to check the insurance status of the vehicle, and was also at fault, and should be liable for compensation for the plaintiff's losses within the compensation limit of the compulsory traffic insurance with the insurance obligor, Wei. In the end, the court ruled that Li and Wei should jointly compensate Sheng Moumou for medical expenses and disability compensation of 120,000 yuan within the compensation limit of compulsory traffic insurance, and an insurance company should compensate Sheng Moumou for appraisal fees and lawyer agency fees of 10,000 yuan within the compensation limit of commercial third-party insurance.

What the judge said

According to Article 16 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Cases of Compensation for Damages in Road Traffic Accidents, if a motor vehicle that has not been insured with compulsory traffic insurance in accordance with the law causes damage caused by a traffic accident, the insurance obligor shall compensate within the liability limit of the compulsory traffic insurance, and the insurance obligor and the infringer are not the same person, and the insurance obligor and the infringer shall bear the corresponding liability within the liability limit of the compulsory traffic insurance. In this case, Wei, as the owner of the vehicle, was aware that the vehicle was not insured by compulsory traffic insurance in accordance with the law, but still rented the vehicle to Li to drive in an accident, resulting in Sheng Moumou's injury and inability to obtain compensation within the scope of the compulsory traffic insurance, and was at fault for the occurrence of the damage, and should be jointly liable for compensation with the actual infringer Li.

This article is transferred from "China Court Network", thank you here!