Supreme Court Responds to the Compensation Rules for Gratuitous Carpooling Accidents
Compensation liability for gratuitous carpooling is clarified: the Supreme Court refines post-accident liability determination and the standards for reduced liability Understand how intentional misconduct or gross negligence affects compensation, avoid disputes, and learn about the latest judicial interpretation
On May 6, the Supreme People's Court issued 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 (II), which gives a clear explanation of liability for compensation after an accident involving a "courtesy ride."
According to the Civil Code, when a nonoperating motor vehicle carries another person free of charge, if a traffic accident occurs and causes damage to the passenger, the liability for compensation may be appropriately reduced if the motor vehicle user is not at fault intentionally or through gross negligence.
The Supreme People's Court stated that determinations by public security traffic management authorities such as full responsibility or primary responsibility for an accident do not automatically correspond to the court's judgment of the motor vehicle user's fault. The court will make a comprehensive judgment on whether "intentional misconduct or gross negligence" is constituted by considering factors such as the accident determination, the causes of the accident, and the specific conduct of the motor vehicle user. This provision aims to better play the role of the "courtesy ride" system and encourage mutual assistance and goodwill in travel.