news

한어Русский языкEnglishFrançaisIndonesianSanskrit日本語DeutschPortuguêsΕλληνικάespañolItalianoSuomalainenLatina

the supreme people's court promulgated the "interpretation of the supreme people's court on the application of the tort liability code of the civil code of the people's republic of china (i)", which will be effective from 2024.effective from september 27th.

today, the supreme people's court issued a judicial interpretation of the tort liability section of the civil code, focusing on new situations that have attracted widespread public attention, encountered in trial practice, and controversial issues that urgently need to be resolved after the implementation of the civil code, clarifying responsibilities and settling disputes.

how can family members seek compensation in child trafficking cases?

clearly support compensation for guardians' reasonable expenses in searching for relatives

in recent years, the acts of trafficking and kidnapping children and mentally disabled women have attracted widespread attention from the society. these crimes not only seriously infringe upon the personal rights of children, but also bring great mental pain and economic burden to the victims' families. relatives often spend a lot of time and money to find their relatives.can the expenses incurred in searching for relatives be compensated?

this judicial interpretation has made it clear that if a guardian is illegally removed from his guardianship, the guardian may request compensation.reasonable expenses incurred in order to restore guardianshipand other property losses,the people's court should support it.

clarify the criteria for determining severe mental damage

in addition, the judicial interpretation also clarified the criteria for identifying severe mental damage. it stipulates that if the guardian is illegally removed from guardianship, resulting in severe damage to the parent-child relationship or other close relatives, it shall be identified as severe mental damage as stipulated in the civil code.

how to determine the liability of a ward for infringement?

for a long time, the protection of the rights and interests of left-behind children in rural areas, minors from divorced families, and "school bullying" have received widespread attention from the society. the judicial interpretation of the tort liability section of the civil code released today further regulates the issue of liability for torts committed by guardians, and provides clearer legal guidance for the protection of the rights and interests of minors.

in practice, there arewhen a non-close relative serves as the guardian and the ward has propertyat this time, if the guardian bears all the responsibilities, it may cause non-close relatives to be unwilling to serve as guardians, which is not conducive to the growth of minors.

to solve this problem, the judicial interpretation stipulates that when the people's court orders the guardian to bear responsibility, it shouldit is clearly stated that "compensation can be paid from the guardian's property first, and the shortfall shall be paid by the guardian."at the same time, in order to ensure the healthy growth of the guardian, the judicial interpretation limits the payment of compensation from the guardian's property, stipulating that"the necessary living expenses and expenses for the guardian to complete compulsory education should be reserved."

who is responsible if a child gets into trouble after a couple divorces?

parents are the guardians of their minor children. after a couple divorces, who will be held responsible for the minor children's tort? in practice, one party of a divorced couple often claims that they do not live with their minor children and that they do not bear responsibility or bear less responsibility.the unfair situation of “whoever makes the effort takes the responsibility”, the judicial interpretation responded.

it is clear that divorced couples shall bear joint responsibility for infringements by their underage children

the judicial interpretation clearly states that after a couple divorces, if their minor children cause damage to others, the injured party may requestdivorced couples jointly bear tort liabilityif one party claims that they do not bear or bear less responsibility because they do not live with the child, the people's court will not support it. stepparents who do not form a relationship of raising and educating a minor do not bear the tort liability of a guardian, and the biological parents of the child shall bear the responsibility.

this will not only better protect the legitimate rights and interests of the infringed party, but also encourage divorced parents to pay more attention to the growth and education of their children, and avoid neglecting their guardianship responsibilities for their children due to divorce.

the entrusted guardian shall bear responsibility within the scope of his fault

the judicial interpretation also clarifies that if the ward commits an infringement, the person entrusted with the guardianship duties shall bear joint liability with the guardian who bears full responsibility within the scope of the fault.

punishing school bullying and reasonably determining the responsibilities of educational institutions

in recent years, school bullying and other illegal crimes have occurred from time to time. the judicial interpretation has also made provisions for punishing school bullying and reasonably determining the responsibilities of educational institutions.if a student suffers personal injury from an outsider on campus, the third party who commits the tort shall be the primary liable party, and the educational institution that fails to fulfill its management responsibilities shall bear supplementary liability at a later date.

the judge introduced that if a third party and an educational institution are co-defendants, the people's court should reflect the order of execution of the educational institution's supplementary liability in its judgment.

if an accident occurs when lending a vehicle that is not insured with compulsory traffic insurance, will the owner be held responsible?

according to the laws of our country,motor vehicles must be insured with compulsory motor vehicle traffic accident liability insurance before they can be driven on the road, which is what we often call compulsory traffic insurance. but in life, there are always some car owners who are lucky enough to choose not to buy compulsory traffic insurance. so if a car without compulsory traffic insurance is given to others to use, will the car owner be responsible for compensation if an accident occurs?

in this regard, the judicial interpretation made it clear that if a motor vehicle that has not been insured with compulsory traffic insurance in accordance with the law is involved in a traffic accident,if the insured person and the person responsible for the traffic accident are not the same person, the insured person shall bear joint liability with the person responsible for the traffic accident within the limits of the compulsory motor vehicle insurance liability.

if your car slips and hits you after you get off, who will compensate you?

it may seem unlikely that someone hits himself with his own car, but in real life, such cases are not uncommon. for example, if a driver gets off the car without stopping it, and the car slides, causing his injury or death, the driver or his family members often have disputes with the insurance company over the compensation of compulsory motor vehicle insurance and commercial third-party liability insurance. for such cases, there is some controversy over whether the insurance company will pay compensation.

in this regard, the judicial interpretation has clarified and unified the judgment standards, stipulating that:motor vehicle driverafter leaving the car,due to own fault such as failure to take braking measuresif the vehicle is damaged by collision or crushing,the driver has actual control over the motor vehicle and cannot "infringe upon himself".the driver is not subject to the third party liability insurance claim.no claims should be made under compulsory traffic insurance and commercial motor vehicle third-party liability insurance.

it is reported that this regulation is also intended to urgethe driver should check the vehicle before leaving it., to ensure the vehiclepark legally and park safely.

who is responsible for a traffic accident involving an assembled vehicle or a scrapped vehicle?

according to the provisions of the civil code, if a motor vehicle that has been assembled or has reached the scrap standard is transferred by sale or other means, and a traffic accident occurs causing damage, the transferor and the transferee shall bear joint and several liability.

who is responsible if a banned vicious dog injures someone?

in recent years, there have been frequent incidents of vicious dogs injuring people. in order to regulate dog-raising behavior and ensure public safety, the judicial interpretation is clear.if a vicious dog that is prohibited from being kept causes harm to others, the owner shall bear full responsibility regardless of whether the victim is at fault or not.

the judicial interpretation provides:if a dangerous animal such as a prohibited fierce dog causes harm to others, and the animal breeder or manager claims that he or she is not liable or that his or her liability is reduced, the people's court will not support this claim. for example, a city's dog management regulations prohibit the breeding of tibetan mastiffs. the breeder violated the regulations and raised a tibetan mastiff. when a tibetan mastiff bites someone, the breeder should bear the liability for compensation regardless of the management measures taken by the breeder or whether the victim teased the tibetan mastiff.

what kind of legal consequences will be borne if damage is caused by objects dropped from high places? how to determine the responsibility if the person who dropped the objects cannot be found?

today, the supreme people's court issued a judicial interpretation of the tort liability section of the civil code, further detailing the issue of liability for objects dropped from high places, and clarifying the responsible parties and the division of liability for injuries caused by objects dropped from high places.

the crime of dropping objects from high places is a new crime created by the criminal law amendment (xi) that was officially implemented on march 1, 2021. it stipulates that if objects are dropped from buildings or other high places, and the circumstances are serious, they shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not more than one year, criminal detention or control, and shall be fined or fined alone. if the acts in the preceding paragraph also constitute other crimes, they shall be convicted and punished in accordance with the provisions with heavier penalties.

in addition, according to the provisions of our civil code,if objects dropped or falling from high places cause damage to others, the infringer shall also bear the corresponding civil liability for compensation.in some cases of infringement caused by objects dropped or falling from high places, the real infringer is not found in the end. in this case, who should bear the responsibility?

the judicial interpretation clearly states thatif objects thrown or dropped from high places cause damage to others, the specific infringer is the primary responsible party, and the property service company that fails to take necessary safety measures shall bear supplementary liability at a later date.

clarify the order of responsibility between the property management company and the possible infringer when the specific person who threw the object cannot be found

in practice, it is not uncommon to find no specific infringer after an incident of dropping objects from high places. in order to ensure that the victim is remedied, according to the provisions of the civil code, the property owner who violates the safety guarantee obligation and the user of the building that may cause harm will bear corresponding responsibilities. so how to divide the responsibilities between the two and who will bear the responsibility first? the law did not clearly stipulate this before, and this judicial interpretation has also clarified and detailed it.

regulation:if it is impossible to identify the specific infringer who caused the injury by objects thrown or dropped from high places, the property management company or other building manager who failed to take necessary safety measures shall first bear the responsibility corresponding to their fault. the remaining damages to the injured party shall be appropriately compensated by the user of the building that may have caused the injury. after assuming the responsibility, the above-mentioned responsible parties shall have the right to seek compensation from the specific infringer to be determined in the future.

according to the introduction: the premise is that all means of investigation have been exhausted and the specific infringer cannot be found, then the user of the building who may have caused harm will be held liable for compensation. this is a major premise.

(cctv reporter zhang sai liu su)