A minor who alters the age on the copy of their ID card rented a motor vehicle and lent it to an unlicensed driver, resulting in a traffic accident. Recently, the Intermediate People's Court of Wuhu City, Anhui Province, announced a property damage compensation dispute case in the second instance, upholding the first instance judgment of the People's Court of Wuhu Economic and Technological Development Zone. The court found that Zhang, an unlicensed driver, bears 60% of the compensation liability, Guo, a second lessee who lent the car to an unlicensed driver, bears 20% of the compensation liability, Wei, the first lessee who rented the car with his ID card altered, bears 10% of the compensation liability, and Ni, the lessor who did not verify the information of the renter, bears 10% of the compensation liability. In February 2024, in order to help his friend Guo rent a car, 17-year-old Wei altered the age on the copy of his ID card and falsely claimed to be an adult. He rented a motor vehicle from Ni in his own name and handed it over to Guo. After receiving the car, Guo handed it over to his companions to drive to a certain community and invited Zhang, who did not have a driver's license, to board the car together. Zhang took over the driving and caused a traffic accident where the vehicle collided due to excessive turning speed during the journey, resulting in serious damage to the vehicle. After the accident, as Zhang was driving without a license and did not report it to the police, the vehicle was towed to an auto repair shop. Due to the inability of all parties to reach a consensus on the compensation amount and liability ratio, Ms. Wang (Ni's mother), the owner of the vehicle, sued Wei's guardian, Guo, and Zhang to the court. During the trial, upon Zhang's application, the court added Ni as the defendant. After the court trial, it was determined that the traffic accident resulted in Ms. Wang suffering losses totaling over 100000 yuan, including vehicle maintenance fees. The defendant Zhang, as the driver of the vehicle, knowingly drove the motor vehicle on the road without obtaining a driver's license, which is the direct cause of the accident and should bear the main liability for compensation. After the defendant Guo, as the second lessee, rented a car from Wei, he immediately had management and control over the vehicle. Although he did not drive the vehicle, he did not understand whether Zhang had driving qualifications and entrusted it to him for driving. He should bear corresponding compensation responsibilities. As the first lessee, the defendant Wei, knowing that he was underage, altered the age on the copy of his ID card and rented a vehicle from Ni. Without Ni's consent, he subleased the vehicle to Guo, which was also at fault for the accident and should bear corresponding compensation liability. The defendant Ni, as the lessor of the vehicle, did not review Wei's driving qualifications and original ID card before renting the car, failing to fulfill the necessary duty of care and laying hidden dangers for the occurrence of the accident, and should also bear corresponding compensation responsibilities. The court made the above judgment after considering factors such as the degree of fault of each defendant and the causal power of their actions on the outcome. As Wei is a person with limited capacity for civil conduct, the compensation liability he should bear shall be borne by his guardian. After the first instance judgment, Guo appealed to the Wuhu Intermediate People's Court on the grounds that he did not drive the vehicle and should not be liable for compensation. After the trial by Wuhu Intermediate People's Court, it was found that Guo, as the second lessee, directly caused unqualified personnel to drive the vehicle, and the compensation liability ratio should be higher than that of the first lessee. Based on the status and role of all parties in the rental chain, the first instance judgment on the compensation ratio was not inappropriate. Therefore, the appeal was rejected and the original judgment was upheld. The judge stated that Article 1209 of the Civil Code stipulates that in the event of a traffic accident causing damage due to the fact that the owner, manager, and user of a motor vehicle are not the same person due to leasing, borrowing, or other circumstances, if the damage is the responsibility of the motor vehicle, the motor vehicle user shall bear the liability for compensation; If the owner or manager of a motor vehicle is at fault for the damage, they shall bear corresponding compensation liability. In the case of continuous rental of motor vehicles, vehicle managers at all stages have the obligation to manage the vehicles themselves and the obligation to review the drivers. If the vehicle manager in one of the links fails to fulfill their corresponding vehicle management obligations, even if they did not directly cause the accident when the rented vehicle is involved, they cannot cut off the causal relationship with the damage result and are at fault for the damage result of the accident, and must bear corresponding compensation liability. Accidents caused by underage car rental and borrowing are frequent, and the car rental industry must strictly review the qualifications of tenants to prevent minors and unlicensed individuals from using cars. Guardians should also fulfill their guardianship responsibilities, further strengthen traffic safety education and legal awareness training for minors, guide them to establish correct codes of conduct, and avoid similar incidents from happening. (New Society)