【线上云德】疫情期间律师说（一百八十六）┃车辆被撞维修期间租车、打车费如何确定

交通事故中，被侵权人的机动车在毁损重置期间或者维修期间，被侵权人为便于出行往往会选择替代性交通工具。根据《最高人民法院关于审理道路交通损害赔偿司法解释》第十五条第四项规定：因道路交通事故造成下列财产损失，当事人请求侵权人赔偿的，人民法院应予支持：（四）非经营性车辆因无法继续使用，所产生的通常替代性交通工具的合理费用。即所谓的“租车费”或者“打车费”。

In traffic accidents, the infringed party’s motor vehicle is often damaged and repaired or repaired, and the infringed party often chooses alternative means of transportation for the convenience of travel. According to Article 15 Paragraph 4 of the "Judicial Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on the Trial of Compensation for Road Traffic Damages": if the following property losses are caused by road traffic accidents and the parties request compensation from the infringer, the people's court shall support: (4) Non-operating Reasonable expenses for alternative vehicles incurred due to the inability to continue to use sex vehicles. The so-called "car rental fee" or "taxi fee".

由于被侵权人在通常替代性交通工具选择上具有较大随意性，替代性交通工具支出金额高低悬殊。因此，对于被侵权人主张的替代性交通工具的费用，不能简单的以实际支出的替代性交通工具的费用作为认定损失的依据。要以诚实信用原则为基础，遵循必要性、合理性原则。根据事故车辆额本身的价值大小和一般使用用途来确定何为“通常替代性交通工具”，例如被侵权人自驾的奥拓汽车被撞受损，修理期间租用奥迪轿车作为替代性交通工具，实际支出费用就明显过高，不属于“通常代替性交通工具”，也有违诚实信用原则，一般不予被支持。

因此，对于被侵权人而言，可以根据日常出行需要，以实际支出的出租车费用作为计算损失的依据；但对于特殊出行需要的车辆，当事人如果举证证明其需要时实际且合理的，也可以将此种情形下的租车作为“通常性替代交通工具”，从而支持相应租车费用。

Because the infringed party has greater arbitrariness in the choice of alternative vehicles, there is a huge gap in the amount of alternative vehicles. Therefore, for the cost of the alternative vehicle claimed by the infringed, the actual cost of the alternative vehicle cannot be simply used as the basis for determining the loss. We must be based on the principle of good faith and follow the principles of necessity and rationality. According to the value of the accident vehicle and its general purpose, determine what is a "usual alternative vehicle". For example, the Alto car driven by the infringer was hit and damaged, and the Audi car was rented as an alternative vehicle during the repair. The actual expenditure The cost is obviously too high, it is not a "usual alternative means of transportation", and it violates the principle of good faith and is generally not supported.

Therefore, for the infringed party, the actual taxi fare can be used as the basis for calculating the loss according to the daily travel needs; but for vehicles with special travel needs, if the party provides evidence to prove that the need is actual and reasonable, it can also Car rental under this situation is regarded as a "usual alternative means of transportation" to support the corresponding car rental costs.