Economic Analysis Of The Responsibility Principle Of Road Traffic Accidents

After the 20th century,the motor vehicle has became the most import means of transport.Motor vehicle have brought extraordinary convenience to human beings. However,security of human beings is menaced by the traffic accidents caused by motor vehicles.Under this circumstances, legislators began to pay great attention to traffic safety-related legal construction.Compensation for traffic accident caused by moter vehicles,which has been prescribed in most countries,is an import part in tort law.But in our civil law there is no unified law on compensation for traffic accident .Road Traffic Accident Safety Act and General Rules of China Civil Law all take liability rules,but the rules are different. The liability rules of the traffic accidents on the road are the main content of the traffic law.Adopting different liabilities will influence the real efficiency of the traffic law essentially. This article believes analyzing the road traffic accident liabilities of our country can help to hold its essence, and make the best to offer some beneficial advices for the legislation of traffic law. We believe the economic analysis of tort law can provide stimulating and productive new ways of looking at the tort liability System, so the author employ the economic approach to analyze what liability rules are the most appropriate for automobile-pedestrian accidents.The first part is introduction. First of all, this part adopts two cases, led the dispute of which principle shoud traffic accidents adopt, that the study of the principle of road traffic accidents duty liability will not only help to resolve the dispute,but also improve our country situation of road safety and reduce the probability of traffic accidents.Secondly, the literature review briefly introduce the meaning and classification of principle. Finally, the article describes the structure of the chapter, analysis methods and possible innovations.In Chapter one ,firstly,the author uses the complete information and static game theory to analyze four liability rules and concludes that strict liability of motor vehicle—limited fault liability of non-motorized vehicles is the optimum liability rule for this kind of accident . Secondly, this article analyzes the actually running station of Road Traffic Accident Safety Act,to prove the effectiveness of strict liability of motor vehicle—limited fault liability of non-motorized vehicles.Finally,this chapter discusses the situation which the injurers may not be able to pay all the harm they caused. It is known as the judgment-proof problem and is of substantial importance, for drivers ofen pose risks significantly exceeding their wealth. When injures are unable to pay fully for the harm they may cause,their incentives to reduce risk will be inadequate and their incentives to engage in risky activities will be too great,and the third-party insurance can make up this problem.In Chapter two ,the author compares different country's legislation on principles for determining of liability rules for traffic accidents caused by motor vehicles. Generally speaking, although the principles of liability in Britain, the United States, German and France have experienced different stages and development process, but now these countries tend to use the principle of strict liability. In our civil law there is no unified law on compensation of traffic accident .Road Traffic Accident Safety Act and General Rules of China Civil Law all take liability rules,but the rules are different.Our country's principle of attribution is from the duty of strict liability to negligence to strict liability and negligence co-existed.In chapter three ,the author analyzes the problems of Road Traffic Accident Safety Act.Of course no law can be perfect, so does Road Traffic Accident Safety Law. It has places to improve. For instance, the proportion to reduce responsibility is too vague to result in judicial practice. At the same time, there are some problems in the third-party insurance.Such as the liability limit is not properly and the third party's right of direct claim is not clear.This part analyses these questions and brings forward the suggestions of revising clause 76.