【作者】 周勤；

【导师】 高歌；

【作者基本信息】 东南大学 ， 法律（非法学）， 2018， 硕士

【摘要】 机动车交通事故责任强制保险简称交强险,《交强险条例》第3条明确了机动车交通事故责任强制保险概念,即由保险公司对被保险机动车发生道路交通事故造成本车人员、被保险人以外的受害人的人身伤亡、财产损失,在责任限额内予以赔偿的强制性责任保险。通常情况下,机动车均需购买交通事故强制保险,承保交强险的保险公司区别于商业保险公司,贯彻《道交法》76条“无责赔付”原则,即只要发生交通事故,不区分机动车方是否有责、主观是否过错,在满足交通事故其他侵权构成要件时,保险人均需承担赔偿责任。本文选取了北京市海淀区人民法院审理的“北京网约车第一案”,该法院依《道交法》76条判处承保机动车交强险的保险公司“无责赔付”而承保机动车商业保险的保险公司免责。笔者在介绍案例基本情况和判决概要的基础上,提出了几点思考:一是什么是交强险的“无责赔付”,其是否具有法律依据?二是“无责赔付”是否意味着无条件赔付?三是现行交强险“无责赔付”的评价以及对其完善的几点建议。全文共分四个部分对交强险“无责赔付”进行了分析和探讨。第一部分通过案例引出“无责赔付”原则,并根据法院的判决引出笔者对“无责赔付”的几点思考。第二部分分析了交强险“无责赔付”的内涵,并从法条和法理两个角度分析了“无责赔付”的法律依据。第三部分结合案例,提出“无责赔付”不等于无条件赔付,分析机动车交通事故中保险人承担责任的两个前提条件,并认为机动车方过错不是交强险赔付的前提条件。第四部分针对交强险“无责赔付”中不合理性,从比较法和法律体系的角度提出了三个方面切实可行的建议。更多还原

【Abstract】 Compulsory insurance is the abbreviation of compulsory liability insurance for motor vehicle traffic accidents.It means that insurance companies cover personal injury property damage caused by traffic accidents.Under normal circumstances,Road Traffic Accident Compulsory Liability Act76 prescribes that “no liability but compensation”,which means as long as a traffic accident occurs,it does not distinguish whether the motor vehicle party is subjectively at fault or not.,the insurance companies shall bear the liability for compensation when satisfying other infringement constituents of a traffic accident.This article selects the "First Case of Beijing’s Didi Dache" heard by Haidian District People’s Court,Beijing.The court sentences that the insurance company pays compensation for motor vehicles relied on the 76,the provision of “no liability but compensation”.However,the motor vehicle commercial insurance take no responsibility.Basing on summary of the case and referee results,the author puts forward several reflections: First,what is the “no liability but compensation”of compulsory insurance and whether it has a legal basis? Second,does "no liability but compensation" mean unconditional compensation? The third is the evaluation of current compulsory insurance of “no liability but compensation” and several suggestions for its improvement.The article is divided into four parts to analyze and discuss the “no liability but compensation”of compulsory insurance.In the first part,the principle of “no liability but compensation”was introduced through the case and the author elicited some reflections on “no liability but compensation” according to the judgment of the court.The second part,analyzing the connotation of “no liability but compensation” in compulsory insurance and finding the legal basis of it from the perspective of law and jurisprudence.The third part,combining the case and proposing that “no liability but compensation” does not mean unconditional compensation.Concluding that the insurer’s liability in traffic accidents should satisfy two prerequisites—a motor vehicle is “in use” or“in operation” traffic accident;the motor vehicle accident must be a causal relationship and damage.The author also refute the views of well-known scholars.In the fourth part,dealing with the “no liability but compensation” in the compulsory insurance,the author proposes to be practical and feasible suggestions from the perspective of the comparison law and the legal system.更多还原