Problems with the definition of automobile accident in Compulsory Automobile Liability Insurance Act
Date Issued
2015
Date
2015
Author(s)
Ho, Ko-fan
Abstract
According to Article 13 Compulsory Automobile Liability Insurance Act (hereinafter referred to as CALI Act or the/this Act), four requirements are designed to determine whether the legal entitlement exists. The four elements set forth as follows:「Motor Vehicle」、「Used or Managed」、「Causation」 and 「Injuries or loss of life(Death) to a passenger or a third party outside the vehicle.」As is apparent, the entitlement language of this Article is ambiguous. Thus, a number of issues remain confusing and unresolved over the past decades. This paper that examines with reference to decided cases and discusses issues in comparison with other countries’ approach is seeking to simplify the complexity in terms of the applicable scope of Article 13. In this paper, I propose a standpoint to see Legislature’s adoption of this Act as an action to adopt 「the special reparation system,」 and therefore, any interpretation should be made based solely upon CALI Act and its respective purposes rather than others, and particularly, should not be bound by the statutory presumption of fault principle adopted by Article 191-2 of Civil Code. With regard to the interpretation of the first element a “motor vehicle,” many Courts used definition codified in Highway Traffic Act, and allowed self-assembled vehicles and farm equipment or farm vehicles which are not mandated to carry financial responsibility by CALI Act to be qualified for benefits and coverage through Article 40 of the same Act. Such application is obviously erroneous and self-contradictory. In this aspect, this paper is hoping to urge the Legislature to amend and redefine the term “motor vehicle” and further specifically exclude certain types of vehicles, including but not limited to, snowmobiles, all-terrain vehicles, and self-propelled or self-assembled machines or vehicles exclusively used for agriculture. As for the second element “used” or ‘’managed,” most Court failed to differentiate one (used) from the other (managed). This paper suggests that these two terms be distinguished and separately examined, and circumstances whether a stationary motor vehicle or the one in motion is involved should too be identified. Furthermore, it should be considered “used,” when injury is arising out of a person’s act engaged into an inherent use of a motor vehicle. As for “managed,” the following two criteria are suggested by the author to use in examination with the “managed” requirement: “the method used to manage the motor vehicle cannot create unreasonable risk of danger” and “loading or unloading vehicular equipment or others should be deemed as managed.” For the causation rule, to be noted that in this paper,「the scope of the rule theory」is adopted by the author in consideration of the public policy and the doctrine of equity as a premise to make several conclusions and analyses. As to the fourth element regarding “injuries or death to a passenger or a third party outside the vehicle,” compared with other countries’ no fault automobile laws, CALI Act specifically excludes the entitlement of the driver of a motor vehicle, but acknowledges the third party outside the vehicle while meeting requirements shall be qualified for benefits regardless of the location. This paper agrees with this point of view that third party’s coverage should not be denied due to the geographical considerations. Finally, the language used in Article 28 Section 1 Subsection 1 and Subsection 2 is equivocal and creates numerous problems. The wording “it through a deliberate act” in subsection 1 is ambiguous and in lack of other supporting definition as to its meaning and scope. Thus, circumstances such as a person who is injured while operating a motor vehicle in a race or speed test or while operating or occupying a motor vehicle known to be stolen would have become insurmountable dilemmas for the Court. Furthermore, subsection 2 only contains injuries through a criminal act, it fails to contemplate situations where the injuries sustained while seeking to avoid lawful apprehension or arrest by a law enforcement officer, which most likely is merely an act ensued a criminal act rather than a criminal act itself. Encountered with the above problems, most Courts would have to “borrow” the causation theory to exclude the injured party from entitlement. However, such approach cannot offer a permanent solution to the problems, and it is necessary for the Legislature to take an imminent action to amend the Act and cover all of the afore-mentioned loopholes.
Subjects
compulsory automobile liability insurance act
motor vehicle
used or managed motor vehicle
the special reparation system
causation of automobile accident
the exclusion for no fault benefits
SDGs
Type
thesis
File(s)![Thumbnail Image]()
Loading...
Name
ntu-104-R95a21057-1.pdf
Size
23.32 KB
Format
Adobe PDF
Checksum
(MD5):c8f7287fc13b87106d596c74c2f01785