Compulsory liability insurance for motor vehicle traffic accidents (referred to as compulsory traffic insurance) is a mandatory insurance stipulated by Chinese law. It is the legal obligation of motor vehicle owners or managers to purchase compulsory traffic insurance in accordance with the law. 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 Compensation Cases for Road Traffic Accident Damage (2020) (hereinafter referred to as the "Judicial Interpretation"), if the policyholder fails to purchase compulsory traffic insurance, the policyholder shall compensate within the limit of liability for compulsory traffic insurance in the event of a traffic accident.

In many traffic accident cases, the person who causes a traffic accident while driving a motor vehicle is not the owner or manager of the motor vehicle, but other personnel (such as friends of the owner). At this point, the infringer is the person driving the vehicle. According to the theory of tort liability, the liability for compensation should be borne by the infringer. Of course, the person who causes a traffic accident while driving a vehicle may not necessarily be the infringer. For example, if a traffic accident occurs when an employee drives a vehicle to engage in employment activities, the employee's behavior is considered as the company's behavior, and the subject of legal responsibility is the company. At this point, the infringer is the company, and the employee is not the infringer.

The above situations all belong to Article 16 of the Judicial Interpretation, which states that the insured obligor and the infringer are not the same person. So, in this situation, who will bear the compensation liability within the scope of the compulsory insurance liability limit? Before January 1, 2021, the Judicial Interpretation stipulates that the insured obligor and the infringer shall bear joint and several liability; After January 1, 2021, the Judicial Interpretation stipulates that policyholders and infringers shall bear corresponding responsibilities.

Seemingly clear regulations, in judicial practice, cases of the same type have completely different judgments. Based on dozens of case searches, we present different judgments on this issue in judicial practice for readers' reference.

1. The policyholder shall not be liable, and the infringer shall be liable

The Shunyi District People's Court of Beijing (2021) Jing 0113 Min Chu No. 24466 Civil Judgment holds that as the owner of the motorcycle involved in the case, it is its legal obligation to insure the motorcycle involved in the case against compulsory liability insurance for motor vehicle traffic accidents. The company shall bear the employer's liability for compensation for third-party damage caused during the delivery service of takeout riders. If the company believes that the delivery rider committed intentional or gross negligence, it may pursue compensation from the delivery rider in accordance with the law.

2. The infringer shall bear joint and several liability, and the policyholder and the infringer shall bear joint and several liability

According to the civil judgment of Changping District People's Court (2021) Jing 0114 Min Chu No. 19270, the couriers were employed by the company to provide delivery services, so the company should be liable for the plaintiff's losses. At the same time, the court found that the courier is the actual manager of the vehicle, so the courier has the obligation to purchase compulsory traffic insurance for the vehicle they drive. According to Article 19 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Road Traffic Accident Compensation Cases (2012), the court has ruled that couriers shall bear joint and several liability for compensation with the company within the scope of compulsory traffic insurance.

3. The insured obligor and the infringer jointly bear the responsibility

The People's Court of Changping District of Beijing Municipality (2021) J 0114 Min Chu No. 27047 Civil Judgment holds that the company should bear the tort liability if a traffic accident occurs to the courier in the process of engaging in express delivery. At the same time, as the policyholder, the car owner should jointly bear corresponding responsibilities with the company within the scope of compulsory traffic insurance. In the main text of the judgment, the court ruled that the company and courier should compensate the plaintiff with 18000 yuan for medical expenses and 180000 yuan for death and disability expenses. The court ruling did not specify the amount of expenses borne by the company and the courier respectively.

4. The policyholder and the infringer shall bear the liability proportionally

According to the civil judgment (2021) Lu 0114 Min Chu No. 5375 of the People's Court of Zhangqiu District of Jinan City, Xue Yun is the insured obligor of the vehicle involved in the case. He drove the vehicle from his home to Meijiarun Company knowing that the vehicle was not insured for compulsory traffic insurance, and he should bear the liability for compensation in the compulsory traffic insurance. Zhuang Changyu (an employee of Meijiarun Company) and Meijiarun Company drove the vehicle out of the test run without informing Xue Yun, causing the traffic accident, The court shall also bear compensation liability within the compulsory traffic insurance. Based on the degree of fault of both parties, Meijiarun Company and Xue Yun shall bear civil compensation liability in a ratio of 5:5 within the compulsory traffic insurance.

Regarding the different judgment opinions mentioned above, we believe that after the revision of the judicial interpretation, if the insured obligor and the infringer are not the same person, the insured obligor and the infringer should bear corresponding responsibilities according to their respective faults. Even in the case where the policyholder is an employee and the infringer is an employer, the liability for compensation should be jointly borne by the policyholder and the infringer, rather than being borne by the employer on behalf of the employee for legal liability for non legally insured compulsory insurance.