In road traffic accidents, the liability burden of motor vehicle owners is a traditional topic, but the liability burden of motor vehicles caused by road traffic accidents in the lease contract is quite special, and the case is controversial after it happens. The author tries to clarify the relevant legal relationship through this article. First, based on the sales contract, before distinguishing the responsibilities, it is necessary to confirm the responsibility burden caused by the motor vehicle not passing the household. Who is the owner of the motor vehicle if the transfer registration is not handled after the sales and delivery of the motor vehicle? Some people think that the owner of a motor vehicle is the owner of a motor vehicle registered with the motor vehicle management authority. I think this view is one-sided. The essence of the problem is about the publicity mode of motor vehicle ownership transfer. As a special movable property, motor vehicle has its particularity compared with the ownership transfer of general movable property. General movable property delivery is a way of publicity, while motor vehicle publicity is controversial. Some people think that our country adopts the doctrine of registration effectiveness, and our judicial organs have widely adopted it in the process of handling cases. This view actually confuses the publicity methods of the transfer of ownership of special movable property and real property. The correct view should be registered confrontation, and the reason is: 1. At present, there is no law in China that clearly stipulates that the publicity method of vehicle ownership transfer is registration; 2. Although the motor vehicle is special, it is still a movable property, and the publicity method of transferring the ownership of movable property by delivery should still be followed. Its particularity lies in that it is not allowed to confront a third party without registration; 3. From the provisions of Article 9 of the Supreme People's Court's Interpretation on Several Issues Concerning the Application of People's Republic of China (PRC) Contract Law (I) and Article 14 of People's Republic of China (PRC)'s Measures for Motor Vehicle Registration, we can see that China adopts the registration confrontation system for motor vehicles. Therefore, the author thinks that the owner of a motor vehicle refers to the person who actually has complete control and disposal rights over the motor vehicle. It can be seen that after the delivery of the vehicle, the ownership of the vehicle has been transferred to the buyer, and the responsibility should be borne by the buyer, and the seller will no longer bear the relevant responsibilities caused by it. The traffic accident was caused by the buyer's fault and illegal behavior, and the buyer should bear the responsibility. On the contrary, after the seller has delivered the subject matter, the seller has lost the actual control of the vehicle, and it is obviously unfair if the seller still bears the tort liability. On February 3rd, 2006, the Supreme People's Court clearly pointed out in his reply to Jiangsu Higher People's Court "Request for instructions on whether the original owner should bear the responsibility for the traffic accident caused by the failure to handle the transfer procedures of the serial car purchase": "The serial car purchase did not handle the transfer procedures, because the vehicle has been delivered, the original. Others put forward the view that because the seller has not fulfilled the collateral obligation of transfer registration, for the sake of protecting the legitimate rights and interests of the victim, the seller can bear the responsibility of advance payment when the buyer is unable to bear the tort liability to the victim, but because the seller's liability of advance payment is different from the buyer's tort liability, the seller has the right to recover the paid money from the buyer after fulfilling the liability of advance payment. The author thinks this view is also debatable. After the delivery of the motor vehicle, the seller only undertakes the guarantee obligation of quality defects and rights defects, and other than that, the law does not set any obligation on it. Therefore, there is no legal basis for asking the seller to bear the responsibility of advance payment. If there is a direct causal relationship between the accident and the quality of the motor vehicle itself, can the victim ask the seller to bear the responsibility? For the convenience of explanation, the quality problems of motor vehicles referred to in this paper refer to the inherent, potential and hidden quality problems of vehicles before delivery, excluding the quality problems caused by improper management or natural loss of buyers after delivery. If the seller fails to fulfill the obligation of informing, it will violate the obligation of quality defect guarantee. At this point, the buyer is in an uninformed state. Strictly speaking, if the buyer has no subjective fault, the accident is not a road traffic accident. #6 1632; . The assumption of any responsibility must be based on the existence of legal relationship. What is the legal relationship between the seller and the victim? Broadly speaking, there is an infringement relationship between the two. However, this tort relationship is based on product quality responsibility, which is directly set by People's Republic of China (PRC) Product Quality Law, and is different from the general tort relationship. It can be seen that only in this case and only in this case can the seller bear the responsibility, which has nothing to do with the transfer of motor vehicle ownership. It is worth noting that there is no concurrence of tort liability and breach of contract liability at this time, and the victim can only claim product quality liability. Of course, the victim can sue the seller and the buyer as the same defendant. The buyer also has the right to recover from the seller based on the seller's liability for breach of contract. The seller and the buyer shall be jointly and severally liable for untruthfulness. Only when the buyer also has damage will there be concurrence of tort liability and breach of contract liability, and one of them will be chosen to claim rights.

Secondly, based on the lease contract, the responsibility burden of traffic accidents during the lease period and the responsibility burden caused by road traffic accidents should be distinguished according to the different lease methods. (I) Bare car rental contract The so-called naked car rental contract refers to a contract in which the owner of a motor vehicle (hereinafter referred to as the lessor) only provides the lessee with the motor vehicle, and the lessee occupies, uses and gains during the agreed period, and pays the rent to the motor vehicle lessor. At this time, the lessee has all other rights except the right to dispose of motor vehicles. With the development of economy and the implementation of the seven-day long holiday, this kind of leasing method is more and more favored by people and meets the needs of people who don't have a car but pursue convenient transportation. The disputes caused by such contracts are also getting more and more attention. Among them, the responsibility for road traffic accidents during the lease contract shall be determined according to different situations. 1. Lessor to Lessee% 26; #6 16 12; There is something wrong with the driving test. Because motor vehicles are quite dangerous, the country has strict requirements on the qualifications of drivers. Only those who have obtained a motor vehicle driver's license can drive a motor vehicle of the corresponding level. The lessor's review fault objectively helps the lessee who has no driving qualification or does not meet the corresponding driving qualification to drive the motor vehicle illegally. Although the lessor's help behavior and the lessee's illegal driving are not the same behavior, they are related (the help behavior is the premise of illegal driving), and * * * caused the loss of the victim in the traffic accident, which still belongs to * * * tort. The lessor and the lessee shall be jointly and severally liable for the losses suffered by the victim. It should be particularly emphasized that for the purpose of encouraging transactions, it is necessary to clarify the boundaries of the lessor's driving qualification. The author thinks that the examination should be limited to the lessor knowing that the lessee has no driving qualification or gross negligence, that is, when signing a bareboat charter contract, as long as the lessor asks the lessee to provide a driver's license or a person with corresponding driving qualification, it should be considered that the lessor has no fault in the examination of driving qualification, and the lessor will no longer bear the responsibility for traffic accidents arising therefrom. 2. The lessor violates the warranty obligation of quality defects, resulting in an accident. If the accident is entirely caused by the quality problem of the motor vehicle itself, based on the product quality responsibility, the lessor shall bear the tort liability to the accident victim and the liability for breach of contract to the lessee. If the lessee is also at fault, the lessor and the lessee shall bear tort liability to the victim. Distinguish the responsibilities of the lessor and the lessee according to the size of the fault.

This traffic accident is purely caused by the fault of the lessee. In this case, the issue of liability burden is controversial. Some people think that the lessor must bear tort liability in the event of a traffic accident based on the owner of the motor vehicle and the beneficiary of the rental behavior. The author believes that this view has no theoretical basis. The assumption of tort liability must be based on the existence of tort. If the lessor's rental behavior is not improper, there is no fault in the occurrence of traffic accidents, and there is no illegal behavior, which does not meet the constitutive requirements of infringement, that is, the lessor's behavior does not constitute infringement. At the same time, traffic accidents do not belong to any special type of infringement. Therefore, it is nonsense to ask the lessor to bear tort liability only on the grounds of the owner and beneficiary. The author believes that in this case, the tort liability caused by traffic accidents should be borne by the lessee independently, and the lessee should also bear the liability for breach of contract. Its theoretical basis is the constitutive requirements of tort and the relevant provisions of contract law. The constitutive requirements of tort and the relevant contents of contract law are not detailed here. Similarly, the tort liability caused by falling buildings and animal injuries is borne by its managers and breeders, not all of them. (II) Car Rental Contract The so-called car rental contract refers to a contract in which the lessor of a motor vehicle provides the lessee with a motor vehicle equipped with a driver according to the agreement, engages in transportation tasks according to the lessee's requirements, and the lessee pays the rent. Obviously, the car rental contract is competing with the transportation contract. 1. Liability burden between lessor and lessee. Because the driver is equipped by the lessor, the driver's behavior belongs to the duty behavior, which can be regarded as the agent behavior of the lessor, and all the consequences arising from the driver's driving behavior are borne by the lessor. Therefore, in the event of a traffic accident, the tort liability will be directly attributed to the lessor, and the lessor will bear the responsibility independently, and the lessee will not bear the responsibility. If the traffic accident also causes losses to the lessee, the lessor must also bear the liability for breach of contract. If the lessee is also at fault for the occurrence of traffic accidents (for example, forcing drivers to drive fatigue), it is a joint tort, and the lessor and the lessee are jointly and severally liable for the victims. Distinguish the responsibilities of the lessor and the lessee according to the size of the fault. 2, the responsibility burden between the lessor and the driver. The traffic management department directly identified the driver's responsibility in the identification of road traffic accident responsibility, but this does not mean that the driver must be responsible for the victim. Even if the driver's malicious behavior (such as drunk driving) causes a traffic accident, the lessor shall bear all civil liabilities for the victim. However, based on the employment relationship between the lessor and the driver, the lessor has the right to recover from the driver after assuming civil liability for the victim due to the driver's malicious behavior.