強制汽車責任保險法汽車交通事故之研究

Problems with the definition of automobile accident in Compulsory Automobile Liability Insurance Act

系所名稱：法律學院法律學系
學位別：碩士
畢業學年：103年
指導教授：劉宗榮、汪信君
我國強制汽車責任保險法第13條規定：「本法所稱汽車交通事故，指使用或管理汽車致乘客或車外第三人傷害或死亡之事故」，其中有四個要件：汽車、使用或管理、因果關係及乘客或車外第三人傷害或死亡。而我國實務上向來對此四要件均未有足夠的認識，此即本文希望解決之問題。汽車交通事故上開四個要件應如何解釋，與本法之立法目的、立法例及責任基礎息息相關。本文肯認本法之立法目的係「使交通事故被害人迅速獲得基本保障、減免加害人的賠償負擔、維護道路交通安全」。至於立法例應採特殊補償制度說，是汽車交通事故之要件解釋上可與實體法第191條之2推定過失脫勾處理。在汽車交通事故要件之探討上，本法劃分汽車之標準錯誤。此外本文認為我國立法者應盡快、明確的於母法中就自始設計在冰上、雪上操作之雪上機動車；自始設計要克服各種地形之全地形車；專用於插秧、自始就是在田裡操作之耕作、收成之農作機具等動力機械做出規範，明文排除。使用、管理則係分別描述利用汽車之動態、靜態過程。「使用」涵義為：「加害人在損害發生時所從事之行為，係對該動力車輛依其原有、主要設計功能所為之使用」。「管理」之涵義除需符合上述「使用」之涵義，亦應該加上「管理動力車輛之方式，不可以造成不合理之風險」、「裝載或卸載動力車輛裝備或其他物品亦屬管理」此兩標準。再就因果關係而言，本文則基於因果關係涉及社會政策以及衡平性，認為因果關係宜採法規目的說。而本文認為汽車交通事故不應有地域上之限制。最後就汽車交通事故除外條款而言，本法第28條第1項第1款「受害人故意行為」意義不明，賽車或速度測試、明知為贓車而駕駛或乘坐此二態樣均不在「受害人故意行為」解釋範疇；同條項第2款之「故意從事犯罪行為」，該犯罪行為時間與範圍界限不清，為了避免被拘提、逮捕之態樣不在「故意從事犯罪行為」解釋範疇；違背安全駕駛我國實務最高法院終認係故意從事犯罪行為，比較法上均以該些態樣係自招危難、有重大可歸責事由而明文排除。違反道路交通管理處罰條例第21條無照駕駛而肇事亦屬重大可歸責事由。最後，比較法上有提出不可抗力事故亦應排除之，我國實務亦有相同結論，本文從之，然亦認宜修法明文化為妥。

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.