Question:
which well-intentioned people to be out the way I mean, my wife’s father was killed a car
goods, but the driver did not have driver’s license and not drive, and has yet to transfer, the the original owners of vehicles not belonging to the third party liability insurance, to buy a car after the driver has no insurance, and now the driver of the poor family can not afford to pay, we do not know to whom to appeal if I hit some good examples on the father-in-law dead? Please give me a users suggested that we do in the prosecution of the original owners?

Answer:
court, on its criminal fringe of Civil Procedure, asking the court to auction the vehicle at the same time, the original owners as second defendant.
say the evidence is legally and can not be said to be sold on the sale, and produce evidence to be considered.

not transfer the original owner of the vehicle accident is the responsibility

———————————– ———————————————

http:/ / www.dffy.com 2005-11-04 21:07:13 Author: Liu Source: Oriental escaped

[the case]
2005 years 3 30, Wang will be the Soviet Union all of its micro-NA × × No. abalone transferred to a bus, vehicle and both cars finished the delivery, but the procedures for transfer. The same year at 11:45 on April 4 about an abalone Suqian City in Jiangsu Province, Ma-ling Road, driving license number NA × × SU minibus traveling to St. Ma-ling Kang River in front of the hotel, the result of improper operation will result in losing control of the vehicle normal traveling Wu, Lee knocked down by the victim constitutes a minor Lee. After the incident, Powell took the initiative to the scene of a public security officers surrendered. By the traffic department to deal with that, a bow in the accident take full responsibility. July 8, 2005, Jiangsu Province places Suqian City People’s Procuratorate to the defendant committed a traffic offense Bao Suqian places to the District People’s Court to prosecute, victims Wu, Lee at the same time attached to the civil criminal courts.
[trial]
2005 years 8 18, the court heard the case publicly. In the course of a hearing on Wang Bao vehicles transferred to a transfer of ownership did not carry out procedures, the original owner Wang should bear civil liability, the formation of two different views:
first view was that the original owners should bear the Wang civil liability. The reasons are: Although the vehicles are movable, but because of its relatively expensive price, generally have to apply for the transfer of the transfer procedures. Wang will be their own vehicles to the two sides after the Powell did not apply for a transfer procedures, it remains the ownership of the vehicle, Wang, and Bao is a vehicle to obtain possession of, use and usufruct, the two sides signed a sale and purchase agreement with the lease agreement and no different, so the original owners of Wang but still should be the responsibility of contractors.
The second view was that Wang should not bear the original owner for civil liability. The reason is: According to the “Contract Law” Article 142nd, 133rd, the “General Principles of Civil Law,” the seventy-second article, the boundaries of risk transfer is the transfer of the subject matter, not because of the risk of the subject matter of the transfer of ownership transfer or whether the subject matter of movable or immovable vary. Unless otherwise provided by law or otherwise agreed by the parties. Such cases are not otherwise provided for in law of the case, and both parties have no agreement on this. Accordingly, the vehicle for the transfer even if the procedures, the risk is still transferred from the delivery occurred. Wang has been transferred to the vehicle and the delivery of a bow, so the original owners should not bear civil liability.
in accordance with the Supreme People’s Court “did not apply on the transfer of a series of procedures car owners whether or not the original motor vehicle traffic accidents were liable for damage caused by the instructions” of the relevant provisions of, and ultimately the court adopted the second view.
[Analysis]
the existing motor vehicle registration is a means of administration, rather than vehicle pre-conditions for transfer of ownership. Ministry of Public Security “on the issue of ownership of motor vehicles to determine the letter” mentioned in: According to the existing vehicle registration regulations and the relevant provisions of the public security organs for the motor vehicle registration is granted or not granted registration on the road is not motor vehicle ownership registration. Therefore, the registered owner of the public security organs should not be ownership of motor vehicles as a basis for discrimination. In addition, research on how the Supreme Court finds that a contract for the sale of motor vehicle transfer of ownership of property a matter of time before the “letter” also responded that the contract of sale on how to identify the transfer of vehicle ownership of property a matter of time for further study can not make a provisions, but the instructions involved in specific cases should be identified from motor vehicle ownership transfer when delivered. Since
has been in the delivery of the vehicle when ownership transfer took place after the accident who is liable? The sale of registered vehicles but without the transfer of share ownership, the buyer of the vehicle has a de facto dominance of vehicles running at the same time also for the interests of the buyer of all, this transfer of responsibility and risk in line. As the actual owners of the buyer has actual possession and use of vehicles, their enjoyment of the possession, use, income empowerment is the content of direct economic empowerment. As for the original owner, its is the registered owner, but the delivery vehicles have been lost on the operation of vehicles and operation of the disposal of interests, vehicles, have gone beyond the scope of his control, but also the possibility of non-management. Vehicles in the possession of the buyer, the original owners should not assume the risk.
road traffic accidents are occurring on Civil Liability for infringement liability, the liability principle should apply the principle of fault liability, so the basis of the parties responsible must comply with the elements of tort liability, that is at fault, the result of damage, behavior, conduct and results between causal relationship. In such cases, the occurrence of traffic accidents, the original owner is not at fault, it is the fault of the buyer. Although the original owner is the name of the owner, but the identity and the damage there is no relationship between the results, only the behavior and the damage is the result of a causal relationship.
Supreme Court “did not apply on the transfer of a series of procedures car owners whether or not the original motor vehicle traffic accidents were liable for damage caused by the letter” in that: a series of car did not handle the transfer process, as vehicles have been delivered, it is not the original owners respond to motor vehicle traffic accidents were liable for damage caused. However, a series of car ownership is not for the conduct of procedures, in violation of the relevant administrative regulations should be subject to the provisions of the adjustment.
I would like to remind the majority of the sale of second-hand car in time for those who have to transfer to membership procedures, or as soon as the sale of the vehicles had a dispute, to both buyers and sellers will cause unnecessary trouble.

Answer:
before the promulgation of the new traffic law should be held jointly and severally liable for the original owners, after the enactment of the new traffic law, traffic accidents and the responsibilities assigned to the current owners had nothing to do but households, but the traffic police departments in accordance with the law to the original owners fined. generally 200. So you can only appeal to the parties

Answer:
Legally speaking, you should find the original owners (preferably through legal means)2006-04-13
问题:
哪位好心人给我指条明路，我妻子的父亲被一个货
车撞死了，但是该肇事司机既无驾照，又不会开车，并且尚未过户，该车属于原车主时没有上第三者责任保险，肇事司机买车后又没上保险，现在肇事司机的家境贫寒，无能力赔付，我们不知道该向谁去申诉，难道我岳父就这样白白撞死了吗？请网友们给我一个建议，我们该起诉原车主吗?

回答:
上法院，对其刑事附带民事诉讼，要求法院拍卖肇事车辆，同时，将原车主作为第二被告。
法律上是讲证据的，不能说是卖了就卖了，拿出证据来才算。

未过户的车辆出事原车主是否承担责任

——————————————————————————–

http://www.dffy.com　2005-11-04 21:07:13　作者：刘敏　来源：东方法眼

　　[案情]
　　2005年3月30日，王某将其所有的苏NA××号微型客车转让给鲍某,车辆及车款双方交付完毕,但未办理过户手续。同年4月4日11时45分左右，鲍某在江苏省宿迁市马陵路无证驾驶苏NA××号微型客车行驶至马陵河康圣旅馆门前时，因操作不当导致车辆失控将正常行驶的吴某、李某撞伤，被害人李某构成轻伤。案发后，鲍某主动向到场的公安人员投案。经交通事故处理部门认定，鲍某在这起事故中承担全部责任。2005年7月8日，江苏省宿迁市宿城区人民检察院以被告人鲍某犯交通事故罪向宿迁市宿城区人民法院起诉，被害人吴某、李某同时向法院提起刑事附带民事诉讼。
　　[审判]
　　2005年8月18日，法院公开开庭审理了此案。在审理过程中，就王某的车辆转让给鲍某未履行过户手续，原车主王某是否应承担民事赔偿责任，形成了两种不同意见：
　　{dy}种意见认为，原车主王某应承担民事赔偿责任。理由是：车辆虽然属于动产，但由于它的价格比较昂贵，转让时一般必须办理相应的过户手续。王某将自己的车辆给鲍某后双方未办理过户手续，因此车辆所有权仍然是王某，而鲍某只是取得了对车辆的占有，使用和收益权,双方签定的买卖协议同租借协议并无两样，所以原车主王某仍应当承但责任。
　　第二种意见认为，原车主王某不应承担承民事赔偿责任。理由是：根据《合同法》{dy}百四十二条、{dy}百三十三条、《民法通则》第七十二条规定，风险转移的界线是转移标的物，风险的转移不因标的物的所有权是否转移或标的物是动产还是不动产而有所不同。除非法律另有规定或当事人另有约定。此种情况不属于法律另有规定的情形，而双方当事人对此也无约定。据此，车辆即使未办理过户手续，其风险仍自交付时发生转移。王某已经将车辆转让给鲍某并交付，所以原车主不应承担民事赔偿责任。
　　根据{zg}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致人损害承担责任的请示》中的相关规定，最终法院采纳了第二种意见。
　　[评析]
　　现行的机动车登记只是一种行政管理手段，而非机动车所有权转移的前置条件。公安部《关于确定机动车所有权人问题的复函》中言及：根据现行机动车登记法规和有关规定，公安机关办理的机动车登记，是准予或者不准予上道路行驶的登记，不是机动车所有权登记。因此，公安机关登记的车主，不宜作为判别机动车所有权的依据。另外，{zg}法院研究室关于如何认定买卖合同中机动车财产所有权转移时间问题的《复函》也对此答复称，关于如何认定买卖合同中机动车财产所有权转移时间问题，需进一步研究后才能作出规定，但请示中涉及的具体案件，应认定机动车所有权从机动车交付时起转移。
　　既然车辆所有权已经于交付时转移，发生了交通事故后该谁负赔偿责任？车辆买卖未经过户登记但转移占有的情况下，买受人对车辆已经具有事实上的支配地位，同时车辆的运行利益也为买受人所有，这与风险责任的转移相一致。买受人作为实际车主，已将车辆实际占有和使用，其所享有的占有、使用、收益权能是具有直接经济内容的权能。而对于原车主来说，其虽然是登记车主，但因交付车辆已丧失了对车辆的运行支配和运营利益，车辆实际上已脱离了他的控制范围，也无管理的可能。在买受人占有车辆期间，原车主不应再承担危险。
　　道路交通事故发生的民事责任属于侵权责任，其归责原则应适用过错责任原则，因此当事人承担责任的基础必须符合侵权责任的构成要件，即过错、损害结果、行为、行为和结果之间具有因果关系。在此类案件中，对交通事故的发生，原车主是没有过错的，有过错的是买受人。原车主虽然是名义车主，但这一身份与损害结果之间没有任何关系，只有行为与损害结果才有因果关系。
　　{zg}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致人损害承担责任的复函》中认为：连环购车未办理过户手续，因车辆已交付，故原车主不应对机动车发生交通事故致人损害承担责任。但是，连环购车未办理过户手续的行为，违反有关行政管理法规的，应受其规定的调整。
　　笔者在此提醒广大买卖二手车者一定要及时办理转籍过户手续,否则一旦买卖的车辆产生了纠纷时,对买卖双方均会带来不必要的麻烦。

回答:
新交通法颁布前原车主应负连带责任,新交通法颁布后,交通事故责任划归当前车主与过不过户无关,但交警部门可以依法向对原车主进行罚款.一般是200元.所以你只能向当事人申诉

回答:
法律上讲，你应该找原车主（{zh0}通过法律手段）2006-04-13