It is generally believed that the tortfeasor bears his own liability in tort disputes and has nothing to do with his or her spouse. However, can husband and wife be held jointly and severally liable only in the case of joint tortfeasance? Under certain circumstances, the liability arising from the tort is a joint debt of the husband and wife, and it also needs to be paid off with the joint property of the husband and wife.
This article combines real cases to show the situation where the spouse bears joint and several tort compensation.
Adjudication Cases
Case 1: Civil Judgment of Chongqing No. 4 Intermediate People's Court (2020) Yu 04 Min Zhong No. 25
The court of second instance held that the tort of motor vehicle road traffic accident is a special tort, which is different from the principle of attribution of fault liability for ordinary torts. The general principle of attribution of liability that "tort debts are exclusive to personal debts" is not fully applicable to the determination of the subject of tort liability for road traffic accidents. There are two criteria for determining the subject of responsibility for traffic accidents, one is operational control, and the other is the attribution of operational interests. For the determination of operational interests,In addition to seeking economic benefits, it should also include the convenience and even enjoyment of life brought by the operation of motor vehicles to the family, and motor vehicles should be regarded as part of family life as long as they are used for family common life, including normal social interaction activities of the familyIf the operating interests of the motor vehicle have been shared by the husband and wife, the tort debt arising shall also be borne jointly by the husband and wife.
Yang Burong has been driving a commercial vehicle tractor for many years, and Shi Shuying could not have been unaware of this, and the income from the operation of the vehicle has naturally been used as part of the family income for the husband and wife to live together, and the resulting tort debts should be regarded as joint debts of the husband and wife, which should be paid off by the joint property of the husband and wife. Therefore, it was not improper for the first instance to determine that Yang Burong's liability for compensation arising from the traffic accident was a joint debt between Yang Burong and Shi Shuying.
Case 2: Civil Judgment of Dalian Intermediate People's Court of Liaoning Province (2022) Liao 02 Min Zhong No. 10497
The court of second instance held that the focus of the dispute in this case was whether the compensation debt for the traffic accident involved in the case was a joint debt of the second appellant and his wife, and whether the appellant Zhou Chunxiong was liable for repaying the debt. The court of first instance relied on the claims of the second appelleeCombined with the ascertained fact that the traffic accident occurred during the existence of the second appellant's husband and wife relationship, it was determined that the vehicle that caused the accident was jointly operated by the second appellant during the existence of the husband and wife relationship, and the proceeds were used for family life, and the compensation for the damages caused by the traffic accident of the vehicle was a joint debt of the husband and wifeThe judgment affirmed that the debt for which the appellant Bai Yunchang was liable for compensation in the traffic accident liability dispute in the other case was a joint debt of the husband and wife of the second appellant, Zhou Chunxiong and Bai Yunchang, and that it was not improper for the appellant Zhou Chunxiong to bear joint responsibility for the debt.
Regarding the second appellant's argument that this case is a claim of the applicant for enforcement to add the person subject to enforcement in the enforcement procedure, and should be added in accordance with the legal procedures, and the lawsuit in this case cannot be filed alone, the reasons for the appeal of the first-instance trial procedure are in the "Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Change and Addition of Parties in Civil Enforcement".It does not stipulate that the parties may directly apply for the addition of one of the husband and wife as the person subject to enforcement without confirming that it is a joint debt of the husband and wifeTherefore, the second appellee in this caseInitiation was filed to confirm that the debts involved in the case were joint debts of the husband and wifeIt was confirmed after trial in the first instance that the procedure was lawful, and the second appellant's grounds for appeal had no legal basis.
With regard to the second appellant's argument that this case was a duplicate lawsuit, and the court of first instance should inform the second appellee of the application for a retrial and rule on the grounds of appeal to reject the lawsuit, the essence of this case is to first confirm the joint debts of the husband and wife, and then require the appellant Zhou Chunxiong to bear responsibilityThere is no such thing as confirming the joint debts of the husband and wifeNow, since the second appellant divorced 7 days after the traffic accident, it is not ruled out that there is a suspicion of evading the joint debts of the husband and wife, and the second appellee filed a lawsuit to confirm the joint debts of the husband and wife, which does not constitute a duplicate lawsuit with the motor vehicle traffic accident liability dispute involved in the case2. The appellant's grounds for appeal have no factual or legal basis.
The appeal was dismissed and the original judgment was affirmed.
Case 3: Civil Judgment of Shaoyang Intermediate People's Court of Hunan Province (2019) Xiang 05 Min Zhong No. 2772
This court is of the view that, on the basis of the ascertained facts of the case,Wu Qiuhong was aware of the fact that Qiu Shuailin drove his cousin to the hospital**, and agreed to Qiu Shuailin's behavior out of the interests of the interpersonal relationship between his husband and wife, family and relatives, so it should be regarded as the daily needs of his family's daily social interactionsInstead of Qiu Shuailin's debts arising from driving a vehicle for illegal purposes, the original judgment applied the provisions of Article 2 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Cases Involving Disputes over Debts between Husband and Wife, and it was correct to determine that the debts arising from the traffic accident should be repaid jointly by his husband and wife.
Lawyer's Analysis
From the above-mentioned cases, it can be seen that although it is a tort dispute, the court may also order the spouse to bear joint and several compensation in the case of a motor vehicle traffic accident liability dispute.
1. Analysis of the main identification elements
(1) The nature of the vehicle
1.Commercial vehicles
In the two cases cited in this article, the nature of the vehicles involved in the cases is commercial vehicles, and the operating income of the vehicles is used for the common life of the family, and the family enjoys the operating interests of the vehicle, and of course should bear the damages caused by the infringement of the vehicle. Therefore, the operational nature of the vehicle is a very important criterion for judging whether the victim can successfully list the tortfeasor's spouse as a co-defendant.
When a traffic accident occurs in a commercial vehicle, the claim is a joint debt of the husband and wife, which is more likely to be supported by the court.
2.Non-commercial vehicles
Of course, operability is not the only criterion. In Case 1, the Court held that, ".In addition to seeking economic benefits, it should also include the convenience and even enjoyment of life brought by the operation of motor vehicles to the family, and as long as the motor vehicles are used for the common life of the family, including the normal social interaction activities of the family, they should be regarded as a part of the family life, and if the operating interests of the motor vehicle have been shared by the husband and wife, the tortious debts arising should also be borne by the husband and wife. This statement expands the interpretation of the operating benefits of the vehicle - as long as it can bring convenience to family life, it can be determined that the family has the operating benefits of the vehicle, such as using a private car to pick up and drop off children, pick up and drop off parents, send relatives to the hospital for treatment, go out to play together, and so on.
This reason is very impressive! Private cars basically fall into the above situation, and according to this logic, the spouse cannot escape the fate of becoming a co-defendant in the traffic accident tort.
(2) Operational dominance and operational interests
Operational domination refers to the de facto domination and control of the operation of motor vehicles, and also includes indirect and potential domination. Typical cases of indirect domination are mainly registered in the name of the owner, such as one party is the nominal owner of the car, and the other party is the actual driver or frequent user.
Operational benefits are the benefits enjoyed by the operation of the vehicle, including both economic benefits and convenience of life. There is controversy in judicial practice, and one view is that the interests here only refer to economic interests, and should not be interpreted expansively as operational interests.
Whether the vehicle has operational control and operational interests is an important factor in judging the subject of tort liability for traffic accidents. If it does not have operational control or operational benefits, it is certainly not the subject of tort liability. For example, in the case of bona fide ride-along, because the driver does not enjoy the operating benefits and is not at fault, the driver is not the subject of tort liability, and the spouse is not liable for compensation.
(3) Relationship between husband and wife
Another key element in which husband and wife jointly pay compensation for traffic accident torts is the conjugal relationship. If the relationship between husband and wife has been dissolved at the time of the traffic accident, the former spouse cannot be held jointly and severally liable. The duration of the relationship is another crucial time factor in determining that traffic accident compensation is a joint debt of the husband and wife.
In practice, if the parties divorce after an accident, it can also be confirmed that the liability is a joint debt of the husband and wife, as in Case 3.
2. Practical suggestions
In a motor vehicle traffic accident liability dispute, if the motor vehicle party has purchased insurance and the insurance limit is sufficient to cover the amount of damages, the plaintiff will generally not apply to add the tortfeasor's spouse as a co-defendant.
However, if the insurance limit is insufficient and the infringer's personal property is insufficient to make up for the loss, the plaintiff should analyze and collect relevant materials as soon as possible to determine whether it can claim to settle the claim with the tortfeasor's joint property of the husband and wife. Applying for preservation of the property of the infringer's spouse as soon as possible, especially the property jointly owned by the husband and wife, can prevent the transfer of property and avoid the occurrence of evasion of joint debts between the husband and wife.
If the infringer's spouse is not named as a co-defendant in the first action, the Executive Directorate will generally not be allowed to add to the enforcement. If there are follow-up costs, an attempt may be made to add a defendant in the follow-up lawsuit, but the subject matter of the claim may be affected.
The pyrotechnic lawyer believes that for the plaintiff's lawyer, it is necessary to evaluate the final enforcement result based on the nature of the vehicle, operating interests, the relationship between the husband and wife, the insurance situation, the property situation of the infringer, and other factors, so as to determine whether it is necessary to list the tortfeasor's spouse as a co-defendant and protect the legitimate rights and interests of the plaintiff in the form of joint debts between the husband and wife.
Therefore, the addition of the spouse as the joint and several indemnifier for infringement is a right and an option of the plaintiff, which can be waived, but it must not be forgotten that there is also such a right.