| On the way to completing the building of a moderately prosperous society in all respects,the day when the expectation of one passenger car per household will be realized is getting closer.The claimability of vehicle depreciation losses has subsequently become a prominent problem in practice.Although theoretically categorized into technical depreciation and transactional devaluation according to the reasons for the formation of depreciation losses,analysis of the elements of vehicle depreciation losses reveals that the causes of the two types of depreciation are not clearly defined.The generation of transactional depreciation cannot be completely related to each other.The factors of use value are separated,that is,both technical depreciation and transactional devaluation are related to the unprofitable use value.Transactional devaluation loss is also called commercial devaluation,and its impact on the value of damaged vehicles includes two aspects: subsequent use and rerealization.Can not be affected by its title and its contemplate.This article takes this case as the starting point,spring from the purpose of the law of torts,through the dynamic balance between the range of legislation protection of property rights and the contribution of causality determine the appropriateness of damages.Tort law is not about the incompleteness of remedies,but about restoring the interests of the subject of rights.The tangible damage of the reliance on vehicle depreciation losses appears for the benefit of the aggrieved party,damages represent the essence of tort law.Except foreword,the thesis consists of four parts.The substances of each part are generalized as below:In Chapter One,three typical cases are first introduced.The first two cases are to demonstrate the two opposing opinions of judgment on the issue of compensation for vehicle depreciation losses in practice.The third case is to prove that vehicle depreciation losses should be compensated.Legitimacy and inevitability.Meantime,in the legislative framework,the Supreme People’s Court and local higher people’s courts at all levels have reviewed the responses and Guiding opinions of the Supreme People’s court and Local Higher People’s courts at all levels courts to the problem of vehicle depreciation losses,and analyzed the repeated changes in their attitudes to illustrate the complexity of this topic.In a manner of speaking that this part is the logic start of the complete text.In Chapter Two,as the establishment and scope of liability for tort cannot come round the concept of "damage",so this chapter begin with the intension and denotation of "damage" and analyzes three theories about damage,"objective damage theory".The emergence of "and normative damage theory" is to make up for the extension of the "difference theory".The three doctrines interpretation the notion of damage from different perspectives in essence.That is,there is no need to be confined to doctrine disputes.If you want to demonstrate the appropriateness of compensation for "vehicle depreciation losses," you first need to turn your attention to between "damage" and "vehicle depreciation losses," and explain the formation and behavior of "vehicle depreciation losses"."Devaluation loss" belongs to the "damage" range.Furthermore,the establishment of dual causality is used to determine the liability for damages.In Chapter Three,through the analysis of 129 cases,according to find that there are two camps in the view of denying that the vehicle depreciation damage should be obtain indemnity in legal practice.The first camp completely denies the existence of damage;the second camp believes that although the damage exists,it should not be compensated due to the four major factors of law without express provisions,disputes in nature,no damage,lack of identification conditions,no actual transaction or no transaction plan.This section responds to these disputes one by one,and demonstrates that it is insufficient to constitute a reason to deny the loss of vehicle depreciation.In addition,in the second section of this chapter,the basis for compensation for vehicle depreciation losses is explained positively from three points of view.The first is to compare the devaluation of the "Haunted House" transaction with the same result,showing that the loss of the vehicle devaluation is not caused by natural distrust in the trading market,but is based on the infringement of the substance of the object,which is fundamentally different from the former;The second is to use the information disclosure obligation in the transaction between the right holder of the "accident vehicle" and the buyer to explain the existence of "defects" in the vehicle involved.This "defect" should not be borne by the party who is the victim,and to avoid legal provisions Inconsistent evaluations within the system,so devaluation losses must be satisfactorily resolved at the infringement stage;third,through the tolerant handling of property devaluation losses,such as houses and ships,which are equivalent to or worse than vehicles,in practice,they believe that they are in the same interest The injured parties should be unanimously evaluated.In Chapter Four,the third part of the discussion has proved that vehicle depreciation losses should be remedied,this chapter defines the considerations for specific pay in light of the relevant approvals of the Supreme People’s Court.Moreover,considering the action freedom and existence element of road participants,in the face of devaluation loss cases of "expensive" luxury cars,the "self-willed risk" system in American law should be referred to,and the victim and the perpetrator should share the loss.First,the perpetrator shall bear the general amount of depreciation of ordinary vehicles within the negligence ratio,which is also in line with the risk pre-judgment of the perpetrator when participating in road driving;and set up a "luxury car insurance" for luxury car owners that can be purchased in advance,and bear the harm through insurance The remaining devaluation losses that people cannot make up for. |
