August 2017
For any child suffering from any physical defect and mental handicap as a result of a traffic accident, the parents may claim consolation payment(Taiwan)
2016.11.25
Jenny Chen
The Supreme Court rendered the 105-Tai-Shang-2109 Civil Decision of November 25, 2016 (hereinafter, the "Decision"), holding that the parents may claim consolation payment for any child suffering from any physical defect and mental handicap as a result of a traffic accident.
According to the facts underlying this Decision, the Appellants asserted that the Appellee was riding a scooter over the speed limit and collided with Appellant A for failure to observe the situation before him. As a result of the accident, Appellant A suffered from lingering central nervous system dysfunction and right hemiplegia, reducing her to a state of mild retardation. A complaint was filed to seek medical compensation and consolation payment. Appellant B, Appellant A's mother, also sought consolation payment. The original decision held that since Appellant B's psychological suffering was not caused by the Appellee's negligent driving, she was not entitled to the consolation payment pursuant to above requirements.
According to the Decision, since the parents are very close to their children, in case of any physical defect and mental handicap suffered by any of their children as a result of a traffic accident, they will obviously sustain tremendous psychological pain when the legal identity interest derived from such intimate relationship is violated.
It was further held in this Decision that the determination that the legal identity interest of Appellant B in this case, which was derived from her care to, and company of, her daughter A in the face of surgeries and long-term rehabilitation and treatment out of their mother-daughter relationship as well as their mutual life support, was not materially violated seemed unsupportable. Therefore, this portion of the original decision was reversed and remanded.
The Supreme Court rendered the 105-Tai-Shang-2109 Civil Decision of November 25, 2016 (hereinafter, the "Decision"), holding that the parents may claim consolation payment for any child suffering from any physical defect and mental handicap as a result of a traffic accident.
According to the facts underlying this Decision, the Appellants asserted that the Appellee was riding a scooter over the speed limit and collided with Appellant A for failure to observe the situation before him. As a result of the accident, Appellant A suffered from lingering central nervous system dysfunction and right hemiplegia, reducing her to a state of mild retardation. A complaint was filed to seek medical compensation and consolation payment. Appellant B, Appellant A's mother, also sought consolation payment. The original decision held that since Appellant B's psychological suffering was not caused by the Appellee's negligent driving, she was not entitled to the consolation payment pursuant to above requirements.
According to the Decision, since the parents are very close to their children, in case of any physical defect and mental handicap suffered by any of their children as a result of a traffic accident, they will obviously sustain tremendous psychological pain when the legal identity interest derived from such intimate relationship is violated.
It was further held in this Decision that the determination that the legal identity interest of Appellant B in this case, which was derived from her care to, and company of, her daughter A in the face of surgeries and long-term rehabilitation and treatment out of their mother-daughter relationship as well as their mutual life support, was not materially violated seemed unsupportable. Therefore, this portion of the original decision was reversed and remanded.
Jenny Chen
The Supreme Court rendered the 105-Tai-Shang-2109 Civil Decision of November 25, 2016 (hereinafter, the "Decision"), holding that the parents may claim consolation payment for any child suffering from any physical defect and mental handicap as a result of a traffic accident.
According to the facts underlying this Decision, the Appellants asserted that the Appellee was riding a scooter over the speed limit and collided with Appellant A for failure to observe the situation before him. As a result of the accident, Appellant A suffered from lingering central nervous system dysfunction and right hemiplegia, reducing her to a state of mild retardation. A complaint was filed to seek medical compensation and consolation payment. Appellant B, Appellant A's mother, also sought consolation payment. The original decision held that since Appellant B's psychological suffering was not caused by the Appellee's negligent driving, she was not entitled to the consolation payment pursuant to above requirements.
According to the Decision, since the parents are very close to their children, in case of any physical defect and mental handicap suffered by any of their children as a result of a traffic accident, they will obviously sustain tremendous psychological pain when the legal identity interest derived from such intimate relationship is violated.
It was further held in this Decision that the determination that the legal identity interest of Appellant B in this case, which was derived from her care to, and company of, her daughter A in the face of surgeries and long-term rehabilitation and treatment out of their mother-daughter relationship as well as their mutual life support, was not materially violated seemed unsupportable. Therefore, this portion of the original decision was reversed and remanded.
The Supreme Court rendered the 105-Tai-Shang-2109 Civil Decision of November 25, 2016 (hereinafter, the "Decision"), holding that the parents may claim consolation payment for any child suffering from any physical defect and mental handicap as a result of a traffic accident.
According to the facts underlying this Decision, the Appellants asserted that the Appellee was riding a scooter over the speed limit and collided with Appellant A for failure to observe the situation before him. As a result of the accident, Appellant A suffered from lingering central nervous system dysfunction and right hemiplegia, reducing her to a state of mild retardation. A complaint was filed to seek medical compensation and consolation payment. Appellant B, Appellant A's mother, also sought consolation payment. The original decision held that since Appellant B's psychological suffering was not caused by the Appellee's negligent driving, she was not entitled to the consolation payment pursuant to above requirements.
According to the Decision, since the parents are very close to their children, in case of any physical defect and mental handicap suffered by any of their children as a result of a traffic accident, they will obviously sustain tremendous psychological pain when the legal identity interest derived from such intimate relationship is violated.
It was further held in this Decision that the determination that the legal identity interest of Appellant B in this case, which was derived from her care to, and company of, her daughter A in the face of surgeries and long-term rehabilitation and treatment out of their mother-daughter relationship as well as their mutual life support, was not materially violated seemed unsupportable. Therefore, this portion of the original decision was reversed and remanded.
