CAJ | 학술논문

由于立法对机动车交通事故损害赔偿主体称谓不同，具体指向亦不明确，这就造成法律适用的混乱。单纯以补偿为目的的损害赔偿忽视了保有人特别是车主利益，并有悖于侵权法基本原理；保险及各种社会救助基金的兴起取代了保有人承担责任的体系位置。有必要反思《侵权责任法》和《交通安全法》有关机动车交通事故损害赔偿主体的表述。确定机动车交通事故赔偿责任的性质应考虑机动车的双重属性，其责任实质由特别安全保障义务转化而来，特别安全保障义务随实际占有人的变动而变动，责任的分配应依据危险的性质以及当事人对危险的管理义务和掌控能力而定。因此，机动车交通事故赔偿主体主要为驾驶人，保有人一般应排除在机动车交通事故赔偿之外。作为驾驶人担责主义的例外规定主要有：驾驶人作为受雇者；保有人主观上的故意或过失。
유우입법대궤동차교통사고손해배상주체칭위불동，구체지향역불명학，저취조성법률괄용적혼란。단순이보상위목적적손해배상홀시료보유인특별시차주이익，병유패우침권법기본원리；보험급각충사회구조기금적흥기취대료보유인승담책임적체계위치。유필요반사《침권책임법》화《교통안전법》유관궤동차교통사고손해배상주체적표술。학정궤동차교통사고배상책임적성질응고필궤동차적쌍중속성，기책임실질유특별안전보장의무전화이래，특별안전보장의무수실제점유인적변동이변동，책임적분배응의거위험적성질이급당사인대위험적관리의무화장공능력이정。인차，궤동차교통사고배상주체주요위가사인，보유인일반응배제재궤동차교통사고배상지외。작위가사인담책주의적예외규정주요유：가사인작위수고자；보유인주관상적고의혹과실。
Confusions arise in the law application due to the different legislative titles for the compen- sator in vehicle traffic accident damages and the obscurity of their references. The compensation solely for the purposes of damages ignores the interests of the person in possession and especially that of the owner＇ s, which is just the contrary to the basic principles of tort law. With the development in insur- ance and the rise of the social assistance funds, such liability system of the person in possession is thus being replaced. It is time now for us to reflect on the statements about the vehicle traffic accident com- pensation subject in the ＂Tort Liability Law of the PRC＂ and ＂the law on road traffic safety＂. When determining the nature of the liability of vehicle accidents, we should consider the dual characteristics of the vehicle. The entity of liability is transformed from the special security obligations. Particular obligation changes with the actual possession transformation . The allocation of responsibilities should be based on the nature of the danger, the risk management obligations of the parties and the subject＇s ability to control. Thus, the vehicle traffic accident compensation subjects mainly are the drivers. The person in possession should generally be excluded outside the vehicle accident compensation. Excep- tions to the above principle are the two cases; one is the driver has been employed; the other is the person in possession has subjective fault, intentional or negligent.