案情简介：

2004年5月，张某酒后驾车，途中与行人徐某碰撞，致徐某受重伤，经当地交警中队认定，张某负此事故的全部责任。经查肇事车系张某于2003年从李某处购得，双方签订了购车协议，张某已支付车款，但车辆尚未过户。

2004年6月份，徐某出院后，在与张某协商未果之下，以肇事车登记车主李某、行为人张某为被告诉至法院，要求二人承担连带责任。

本案关键问题：

在车辆登记人、实际支配人不同的情况下，谁该为交通事故买单，是否共同承担连带责任。

律师评析：

首先本案中存在两个法律关系，

第一，张某与徐某构成民事侵权法律关系；

第二，张某与李某构成买卖合同关系。根据相关法律规定，张某系交通事故的直接侵权人，理应对徐某承担人身损害赔偿责任，但车辆登记人李某是否应承担连带责任呢？

在区分责任之前，必须确认机动车辆的所有权人。如果机动车辆买卖交付后未办理过户登记，谁为机动车辆的所有人？有人认为机动车辆所有权人即为机动车辆在机动车辆管理机关所登记的户主。笔者认为这种观点是片面的。机动车辆作为特殊动产，相对于一般动产所有权的转移有其特殊性。一般动产以其被交付为公示方式，而对机动车辆的公示方式则产生很大的争议。有人认为我国采用的是登记生效主义，即以登记为合同是否生效的依据。笔者认为对此我国是采用了登记对抗主义，

理由是：

1、机动车辆虽然具有特殊性，但仍然是动产，仍应遵循动产以交付为所有权转移的公示方式，其特殊性只是在于未经登记不得对抗第三人；

2、从《合同法》、合同解释（一）和《机动车登记规定》中，可以得知我国对机动车辆采用的是登记对抗主义。故笔者认为机动车辆所有权人是指实际对机动车辆具有完全支配权、处置权的人。

因此，车辆在交付后发生道路交通事故，尽管没有办理过户手续，所有权已转移到买受人，责任也应由买受人承担，出卖人不再承担由此而引发的相关责任。此外，根据最高人民法院于2001年12月31日以（2001）民一他字第32号对江苏省高级人民法院《关于连环购车未办理过户手续，原车主是否对机动车发生交通事故承担责任的请示》的函复中明确指出：“连环购车未办理过户手续，因车辆已交付，原车主既不能支配该车的营运，也不能从该车的营运中获得利益，故原车主不应对机动车发生交通事故致人损害承担责任。”故不管从法理上，还是法律规定上分析，车辆登记人（原车主）都不应对机动车发生交通事故致人损害承担责任。

陈新

Case Introduction:

In May 2004, while driving under the influence of alcohol, Zhang collided with pedestrian Xu, causing serious injury to Xu. After being identified by the local traffic police squadron, Zhang was fully responsible for the accident. After investigation, the car involved in the accident was purchased by Zhang from Li in 2003, and both parties signed a car purchase agreement. Zhang has already paid for the car, but the vehicle has not yet been transferred.

In June 2004, after Xu was discharged from the hospital, but failed to negotiate with Zhang, he was sued to the court with Li, the registered owner of the accident car, and Zhang, the perpetrator, as defendants, demanding that both parties bear joint and several liability.

Key issues in this case:

In the case of different vehicle registrants and actual controllers, who should pay for the traffic accident and whether they jointly bear joint and several liability.

Lawyer evaluation:

Firstly, there are two legal relationships in this case,

Firstly, Zhang and Xu constitute a civil infringement legal relationship;

Secondly, Zhang and Li form a sales contract relationship. According to relevant laws and regulations, Zhang is the direct infringer of a traffic accident and should be liable for personal injury compensation for Xu. However, should the vehicle registrant Li bear joint liability?

Before distinguishing responsibilities, the owner of the motor vehicle must be confirmed. If the transfer registration is not processed after the sale and delivery of motor vehicles, who is the owner of the motor vehicle? Some people believe that the owner of a motor vehicle is the head of household registered with the motor vehicle management authority. The author believes that this viewpoint is one-sided. As a special movable property, motor vehicles have their own characteristics compared to the transfer of ownership of general movable property. Generally, the delivery of movable property is the method of publicity, while the method of publicity for motor vehicles has caused great controversy. Some people believe that China adopts the principle of registration taking effect, which is to use registration as the basis for whether a contract becomes effective. The author believes that China has adopted registration antagonism in this regard,

The reason is:

1. Although motor vehicles have special characteristics, they are still movable property and should still follow the public notice method of transferring ownership through delivery of movable property. Its uniqueness lies only in that they cannot confront third parties without registration;

2. From the Contract Law, Contract Interpretation (1), and the Motor Vehicle Registration Regulations, it can be seen that China adopts registration adversarial doctrine for motor vehicles. Therefore, the author believes that the owner of a motor vehicle refers to the person who actually has complete control and disposal rights over the motor vehicle.

Therefore, if a road traffic accident occurs after the delivery of the vehicle, although the transfer procedures have not been completed, the ownership has been transferred to the buyer, and the responsibility should also be borne by the buyer. The seller will no longer bear any related responsibilities arising from this. In addition, According to the letter issued by the Supreme People's Court on December 31, 2001 (2001) Min Yi Ta Zi No. 32) to the Jiangsu Provincial High People's Court on the request for instructions on whether the original owner of a car is responsible for a traffic accident caused by a series of car purchases without completing the transfer procedures, it is clearly stated that: The serial car purchase did not go through the transfer procedures. As the vehicle has been delivered, the original owner cannot control the operation of the vehicle or obtain benefits from the operation of the vehicle. Therefore, the original owner should not be liable for damages caused by motor vehicle traffic accidents. Therefore, regardless of legal principles or regulations, the vehicle registrant (original owner) should not be liable for damages caused by motor vehicle traffic accidents.

Chen Xin