原标题：奥迪轿车被撞后送店维修 车主诉租车代步费获支持

法制网讯 记者马超 通讯员 成飞 顾建兵 耿先生驾驶奥迪轿车因遭遇交通事故停于路面时，被胡某驾车从后面追尾，致两车受损。在奥迪车被送4S店修理期间，耿先生另租赁了一辆凯美瑞代步，由此产生18020元租车费，双方就该笔租车费赔偿事宜发生争议。

12月10日 ，江苏省南通市中级人民法院对这起机动车交通事故责任纠纷案作出维持一审的终审判决，因原告车辆受损系两起交通事故所致，该两起交通事故的侵权人对拖车费、租车费均应共同承担赔偿责任，判决保险公司在交强险、商业险限额内赔偿原告拖车费的50%即210元、租车费的50%即9010元及车辆维修费合计71420元。

2014年1月17日21时25分左右，胡某驾驶小型客车与因交通事故停于路面的耿先生驾驶的奥迪车后部发生碰撞，致两车受损。经交警部门认定，胡某负该起事故的全部责任。事发后，耿先生把奥迪车送去4S店进行修理，支付维修费62200元、拖车费420元。车辆修理期间，耿先生另从汽车租赁公司租赁了一辆凯美瑞轿车作为交通工具，并支付租金18020元。

另查明，胡某所驾小型客车在保险公司投保了交强险和第三者商业责任险，事发在保险期限内。

事后，双方就租车费赔偿未能达成协议，耿先生将保险公司及胡某一起诉上了法庭，索赔包括18020元在内的租车费、维修费、拖车费共计8万余元。

法庭上，保险公司辩称，租车费不是直接损失，不属保险赔偿范围内。

一审法院审理认为，案涉交通事故发生后，原告因车辆受损无法继续使用，故其签订《汽车租赁合同》租赁车辆使用，所产生合理的租车费用应由保险公司承担。根据《中华人民共和国侵权责任法》第十二条规定，二人以上分别实施侵权行为造成同一损害难以确认责任大小的，平均承担赔偿责任。因原告车辆受损系两起交通事故所致，该两起交通事故的侵权人对拖车费、租车费均应共同承担赔偿责任，遂判决保险公司在交强险、商业险限额内赔偿原告拖车费的50%即210元、租车费的50%即9010元及车辆维修费合计71420元。

保险公司不服，向二审法院提起上诉。南通中院经审理维持原判。

【以案释法】替代性交通工具合理费用应支持

据该案二审审判长钱泊霖介绍，最高人民法院《关于审理道路交通事故损害赔偿案件适用法律若干问题的解释》第15条规定：因道路交通事故造成下列财产损失，当事人请求侵权人赔偿的，人民法院应予支持：……（四）非经营性车辆因无法继续使用，所产生的通常替代性交通工具的合理费用。

“本案中，原告自用车辆为奥迪，其因事故受损，无法继续使用，故原告租赁凯美瑞为通常替代性交通工具，综合考量车辆价值和原告使用用途，原告在修理期间所发生的租车费用应属合理范围，故对原告要求租车费用由保险公司赔偿的主张应予以支持。”钱泊霖说。

Original title: Audi sedan was hit and sent to the store for repair. The owner complained that the rental and transportation fees were supported

Legal Network News: Correspondent Ma Chao, Cheng Fei, Gu Jianbing, Mr. Geng, was driving an Audi sedan and stopped on the road due to a traffic accident. He was rear-ended by Hu, causing damage to both cars. During the period when the Audi car was sent to a 4S store for repair, Mr. Geng rented another Camry for transportation, resulting in a rental fee of 18020 yuan. There was a dispute between the two parties regarding the compensation for this rental fee.

On December 10th, the Intermediate People's Court of Nantong City, Jiangsu Province, made a final judgment in upholding the first instance of the motor vehicle traffic accident liability dispute case. As the plaintiff's vehicle damage was caused by two traffic accidents, the infringers of these two traffic accidents should jointly bear the compensation responsibility for trailer fees and rental fees. The court ruled that the insurance company should compensate the plaintiff with 50% of the trailer fees, or 210 yuan, within the limits of compulsory and commercial insurance 50% of the rental fee is 9010 yuan, and the total vehicle maintenance fee is 71420 yuan.

At around 21:25 on January 17, 2014, Hu collided with Mr. Geng's Audi car, which had been parked on the road due to a traffic accident, causing damage to both cars. According to the traffic police department, Hu is fully responsible for the accident. After the incident, Mr. Geng sent the Audi car to a 4S store for repair, paying 62200 yuan for the repair fee and 420 yuan for the trailer fee. During the vehicle repair period, Mr. Geng also rented a Camry sedan from a car rental company as a means of transportation and paid a rent of 18020 yuan.

It was also found that the small bus driven by Hu was insured against compulsory traffic insurance and third-party commercial liability insurance with an insurance company, and the incident occurred within the insurance period.

Afterwards, both parties failed to reach an agreement on compensation for car rental fees. Mr. Geng sued the insurance company and Mr. Hu together in court, claiming a total of over 80000 yuan, including 18020 yuan for car rental fees, maintenance fees, and trailer fees.

In court, the insurance company argued that the rental fee was not a direct loss and was not covered by insurance compensation.

The first instance court held that after the traffic accident involved in the case, the plaintiff was unable to continue using the vehicle due to damage. Therefore, they signed a "Car Rental Contract" to lease the vehicle for use, and the reasonable rental costs incurred should be borne by the insurance company. According to Article 12 of the Tort Liability Law of the People's Republic of China, if two or more individuals commit tortious acts separately and cause the same damage, it is difficult to determine the magnitude of liability, they shall bear equal compensation liability. Due to two traffic accidents causing the damage to the plaintiff's vehicle, the infringers of these two traffic accidents should jointly bear the liability for compensation for both trailer and rental fees. Therefore, the insurance company was ordered to compensate the plaintiff with 50% of the trailer fee, which is 210 yuan, 50% of the rental fee, which is 9010 yuan, and a total of 71420 yuan for vehicle maintenance within the limits of compulsory and commercial insurance.

The insurance company is dissatisfied and appeals to the second instance court. The Nantong Intermediate People's Court upheld the original judgment after trial.

The reasonable cost of alternative transportation should be supported

According to Qian Bolin, the presiding judge of the second instance of the case, Article 15 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Road Traffic Accident Damage Compensation Cases stipulates that if a party requests compensation from the infringer for the following property losses caused by a road traffic accident, the people's court should support:... (4) the reasonable expenses incurred by non operating vehicles due to their inability to continue using, which are usually alternative means of transportation.

In this case, the plaintiff's own vehicle is Audi, which was damaged in an accident and cannot be used anymore. Therefore, the plaintiff leased the Camry as a normal alternative transportation vehicle. Taking into account the vehicle value and the plaintiff's usage, the rental costs incurred by the plaintiff during the repair period should be within a reasonable range. Therefore, the plaintiff's claim that the rental costs should be compensated by the insurance company should be supported, "Qian Bolin said.