Mr. Wei, the vehicle owner, lent his motorcycle to Mr. Lin, who did not have a driving license. Mr. Lin drove the motorcycle and had a traffic accident with Zhang Hai, who was riding an electric bicycle. Their vehicles were damaged, and Zhang Hai was injured. According to the traffic management department of the public security authorities, Mr. Lin was found fully responsible for the accident, and Zhang Hai was not at fault. At the time of the accident, the vehicle driven by Mr. Lin was not covered by compulsory traffic insurance. Later, Zhang Hai sued Mr. Lin and Mr. Wei in court. After trial, the Haidian Court ruled that driver Mr. Lin and vehicle owner Mr. Wei are jointly liable to compensate for medical expenses, hospital meal allowances, nutrition fees, nursing fees, lost wages, transportation fees, totaling more than 21,000 yuan.
Case Summary
The plaintiff, Zhang Hai, stated that he collided with the motorcycle ridden by Mr. Lin while riding an electric bicycle, resulting in injuries. Mr. Lin was fully responsible, and he himself was not at fault. The responsibility determination document also stated that the vehicle driven by Mr. Lin was not covered by compulsory traffic insurance. After the accident, he received treatment due to injuries and incurred various losses due to the accident. Mr. Wei, as the owner of the motorcycle driven by Mr. Lin, did not insure the vehicle with compulsory traffic insurance and lent the vehicle to Mr. Lin, who did not have a valid driving license. Therefore, he requested that Mr. Lin and Mr. Wei be jointly liable to compensate 2,000 yuan for electric bicycle damage, 18,053.8 yuan for medical expenses, 6,000 yuan for lost wages, 1,400 yuan for nursing fees, and 700 yuan for nutrition fees.
Defendants Mr. Lin and Mr. Wei jointly stated that they acknowledged the facts of the accident and the determination of responsibility, agreed to bear joint and several liability for Zhang Hai's losses, and agreed to compensate for the reasonable parts of Zhang Hai's claimed losses, but disagreed with compensation for the unreasonable parts.
Court Trial
The court, after trial, found that Mr. Lin was driving a regular two-wheeled motorcycle heading from north to south, while Zhang Hai was riding an electric bicycle heading from south to north. The front right part of Mr. Lin's vehicle made contact with the front left part of Zhang Hai's vehicle, resulting in a traffic accident that caused damage to the vehicles and injuries to Mr. Lin and Zhang Hai. This accident was documented by the traffic management department of the Beijing Public Security Bureau with a traffic accident responsibility determination. It was determined that Mr. Lin was at fault due to Article 10, Item 2 of the "Beijing Road Traffic Accident Simplified Procedure Regulations" for "driving a motor vehicle without a valid driver's license or driving a vehicle inconsistent with the type permitted by the license," as well as Article 9, Item 12 for "violating the right-hand traffic rule," and also for "illegally entering a non-motorized vehicle lane or pedestrian lane," making him fully responsible. Zhang Hai was found to have no responsibility. The responsibility determination also indicated that the vehicle involved, driven by Mr. Lin, was not covered by compulsory traffic insurance and that Mr. Lin did not have a driving qualification.
After trial, the court held that in this case, Mr. Lin drove a motor vehicle and caused a traffic accident with Zhang Hai. According to the determination of the traffic management department, Mr. Lin was fully responsible for this accident. Mr. Wei, as the owner of the motor vehicle, entrusted the vehicle to Mr. Lin, who did not have a driving qualification, which constituted a fault. Moreover, Mr. Wei did not legally insure the vehicle with compulsory traffic insurance. Therefore, Zhang Hai's reasonable and lawful losses are to be jointly and severally borne by Mr. Lin and Mr. Wei. The court finally made the above judgment.
After the verdict was announced, none of the parties appealed, and the judgment has now come into effect.
Judicial Interpretation of the Law
1. Liability for Not Legally Insuring Motor Vehicles with Compulsory Traffic Insurance
Article 16 of the "Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in Hearing Cases of Road Traffic Accident Damage Compensation" (revised in 2020) provides: "If a motor vehicle that has not been legally insured with compulsory traffic insurance (CTI) causes damage in a traffic accident, and a party requests the insurance obligor to compensate within the CTI liability limit, the people's court shall support such a request. If the insurance obligor and the tortfeasor are not the same person, and a party requests both the insurance obligor and the tortfeasor to bear corresponding responsibility within the CTI liability limit, the people's court shall support this." Insuring with CTI is a legal obligation that vehicle owners and managers must fulfill. If they fail to legally insure the motor vehicle, they consequently assume responsibility as the vehicle owner or manager. Since CTI features compensation regardless of fault, meaning that the insurer should first compensate the victim within the CTI liability limit regardless of whether the driver is at fault, this ensures the victim obtains basic relief as a priority when the facts and liability of the accident are clear. If the insurance obligor does not fulfill this obligation, it essentially deprives the victim of their right to priority compensation within the CTI liability limit. To compensate the victim for their loss under such circumstances, the insurance obligor and the driver shall bear joint and several liability within the CTI liability limit.
2. Liability for Lending Motor Vehicles to Unqualified Drivers
Article 1209 of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China provides: "If the vehicle owner or manager and the driver are not the same person due to situations such as leasing or borrowing, and a traffic accident occurs causing damage, the driver of the vehicle shall bear compensation responsibility if the accident is due to the vehicle; if the owner or manager is at fault for the damage, they shall bear corresponding compensation responsibility." In practice, determining whether the vehicle owner or manager bears liability when lending a vehicle to an unqualified driver requires assessing whether their behavior constituted fault. The "Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in Hearing Cases of Road Traffic Accident Damage Compensation" provides explicit guidance in Article 1: "If a motor vehicle causes damage in a traffic accident and the vehicle owner or manager has any of the following circumstances, the people's court shall recognize that they are at fault for the damage and apply Article 1209 of the Civil Code to determine their corresponding compensation responsibility: ... (2) knowing or should have known that the driver is unlicensed or has not obtained the corresponding driving qualification..." Therefore, when lending a motor vehicle, the vehicle owner or manager must exercise reasonable and prudent examination and caution regarding whether the driver holds a valid driving qualification.