The Judicial Practice Analysis Of The Liability Identification Of The Sharing Platform In The Sharing Car Traffic Accident

The "sharing" concept of "sharing cars" has changed people’s traditional life concept.It not only meets the needs of the fast-paced people in the 21 st century,but also saves social resources and adapts to the idea of green development.Therefore,it is favored by government departments and the working class,and the market demand is constantly expanding.With the high frequency use of Shared cars,the dispute about the liability of Shared cars in traffic accidents appears highly,However,the operation model of "Shared car" is different from the traditional business model of car rental,which is more flexible and removable.Therefore,the determination of the subject of liability and the scope of compensation under the complex legal relationship puts forward higher requirements for the judicial personnel.However,due to the generality of the legislation,the particularity of the Shared car operation and people’s different understanding and cognition of the same knowledge,there are different judgment results of similar cases in the trial practice.But at present,the studies on motor vehicle tort liability is concentrated in the "The car unity" of the traditional research.There is little research on the tort liability of Shared cars,which is different from other rental models.Therefore,it has aroused a wide discussion in the society,among which the most important one is the responsibility determination of the Shared automobile platform,including the responsibility subject of the Shared automobile platform,fault liability and liability form.Firstly,there is confusion in the identification of the responsibility subject of the sharing vehicle platform.Some courts directly identify the Shared automobile platform as the operating interest owner of the "motor vehicle party" to determine joint and several liability,other courts identify the car sharing platform as the operating manager and assume shared liability,and even identify the car sharing platform liability from the perspective of the principle of honesty and fair liability.Secondly,there are inconsistencies in the determination and treatment of fault liability.First,under the special circumstances of inconsistency between the account owner and the actual driver and drunkenness,whether the sharing vehicle platform is deemed to have fulfilled its duty of review and exempted from liability,the trial practice has different treatment results;Second,the relevant contents in the membership agreement,under the circumstances of difficulties in performance,whether the sharing vehicle platform can be deemed to have fulfilled the review obligation and the handling of exemption is also different.Finally,according to the current legislation,the liability form of the Shared automobile platform is "corresponding compensation liability".In the trial practice,there are two different trial results,one is joint and several liability,the other is shared liability,so the judgment result is more in line with the legislative provisions and worth our exploration.On the basis of combining the existing legislative provisions and theoretical basis,it is found that although the current legislative provisions on motor vehicle traffic accident liability in China have some recapitulative defects,the overall provisions are reasonable,and there is no need to carry out legislative activities again.It is legal and reasonable to identify the liability subject status of the Shared automobile platform as the owner or manager and then to take the principle of imputation of fault liability for liability.When determining the fault liability of the sharing vehicle platform under special circumstances,the possibility of performance and the difference between sharing vehicle operation and traditional car leasing should be considered.In addition,the new things of car sharing cannot be viewed from a limited cognitive perspective.The possibility is not fulfilled in technical level,can consider the possibility to perform fault behavior,such as the alcohol tester technical design has yet to be completed,Although the sharing vehicle platform cannot be required to assume fault liability,because it does not install breathalyzer for driving supervision,it can be required to assume compensation liability for failing to fulfill the obligation of caution reminder in the membership agreement,so as to avoid the situation of not being punished when the penalty is due.As for the determination of the liability form of the Shared automobile platform,through the specific analysis of each liability form,it is found that the liability sharing form of the Shared automobile platform and other liability subjects should be based on share liability,and there is neither the possibility of joint liability nor the possibility of supplementary liability.In this paper,the author puts forward the above views on the determination of the compensation scope of the liability subject status,fault liability and liability form of the Shared automobile platform,so as to promote the smooth judicial work and the healthy development of the Shared automobile industry.