| 篇名 |
被害人酒後駕車是強制汽車責任保險的法定除外危險？－－臺灣高等法院花蓮分院104年度原上字第9號判決評析 |
| 並列篇名 |
Is Victim’s Drunk Drivingan Exclusion of Compulsory Automobile Liability Insurance? |
| 作者 |
葉啓洲 |
| 中文摘要 |
汽車交通事故中，受害人若有酒後駕車而構成公共危險罪時，依照強制汽車責任保險法第28條的文義解釋，保險人不負給付責任。未酒後駕車的被保險人將需自行承擔賠償責任，不受該保險契約的保障。本文評釋的二審法院判決，不但將該條限縮解釋為僅排除受害人的直接請求權，不影響被保險人的保險給付請求權，而且在保險人誤向受害人給付時，亦不得全額請求返還。本判決涉及被保險人在強制車險中的法律地位與受保護需求等核心問題，也是法院對於不當立法的一個修正解釋。本文分析後認為，強制汽車責任保險第28條應予刪除。刪除之前，宜解釋為：僅被保險人對該交通事故完全無責時，始能適用之。 |
| 英文摘要 |
According to the literal interpretation of Article 28 of the Compulsory Automobile Liability Insurance Act (hereafter as Act), the insurer would not be liable for the drunk driving victim who committed offenses against public safety in traffic accident. By contrast, the insured who was not drunk driving has to assume the liability without the coverage of the compulsory automobile liability insurance. The judgment which is commented by this paper rules that article 28 of the Act should be interpreted as elimination of direct action of the victim without affecting the right to claim of the insured in accordance with the contract. In the meantime, the insurer could not ask for full refund if it paid the victim by mistake. This judgment holds the core issues regarding the legal status of the insured and the demand for protection of compulsory automobile liability insurance, and delivers the revised interpretation of the improper legislation. From this paper’s point of view, deletion of Article 28 of the Act is recommended after the refined analysis. Before deletion, Article 28 should be interpreted as: it can only be applied if the insured was no any responsibility for the traffic accident. |
| 起訖頁 |
71-85 |
| 關鍵詞 |
酒後駕車、強制汽車責任保險、除外危險、不當得利、直接請求權、過失相抵、Drunk Driving、Compulsory Automobile Liability Insurance、Exclusions、Unjust Enrichment、Action Directe、Contributory Negligence |
| 刊名 |
月旦法學雜誌 |
| 出版單位 |
元照出版公司
|
| 期數 |
201901 (284期) |
| DOI |
10.3966/102559312019010284004 複製DOI DOI申請 |
| QRCode |
 |
| |
