Well, I realize that this thread has developed to quite a “mature” level, and a number of important conclusions have been reached. But I think I might add a few brief comments in relation to the age of the child and his/her ability to sue or be sued.
I have handled numerous cases in the Taipei High Administrative Court for children. Many of those cases have involved “overstay matters” … and while that type of action is not directly related to the current discussion of being hit by a motorcycle, there are some similar principles involved.
In other words, you cannot just say “The child is underage, so when we get the court notice we just ignore it.” Either one of the parents goes to court to stand-in for the child, or you hire a lawyer to go to court.
(I regret that with my many years of legal activities in the Taiwan courts I am still unable to recommend any “English speaking lawyers” to members of this forumosa.com website. I am still looking … )
It may well be true that the previous posters to this thread are fully aware of the legal implications of the comments which I have made above, however as Moderator I thought I would add my NT$ 2 for everyone’s reference, or for the consideration of other persons who may be new to run-ins with the Taiwan legal system.
Also, what about the issue of insurance? If the injuries sustained by the other party were paid for under the National Health Insurance program, then his/her attempts to extort more money out of you (or your child) are highly questionable. Pain and suffering? Those are abstract concepts not fully recognized in the Taiwan legal structure. That would be my observation.
P.S. On a related note, regarding the overstay cases mentioned above, which involved children under the age of twelve, and in some cases involved infants, I must point out that the Taiwanese judges would never agree to my argument that a “child” cannot be deported for overstaying his/her visa because he/she is without legal capacity to be responsible for such action … and that includes the fact that the child is incapable of going to H.K. (for example), getting a new visa, returning to Taiwan, etc. The National Police Administration maintained (and the judges agreed) that taking the child to H.K. (or wherever) is the parents’ responsibility. I countered that THAT IS CLEARLY NOT TRUE, because the “administrative sanction” (regarding visa overstay) is against the child, and there has been no accompanying “administrative sanction” against the parent(s). Furthermore, there is no provision under Taiwan’s Immigration Law whereby a parent is automatically given an associated (or “complimentary”) administrative sanction when a child is found in violation of some administrative law matter. Hence, my argument was that under the civil law statutes in effect in Taiwan, and in conjunction with the Immigration Law, a child can only be required to pay “overstay fines” but cannot be deported. ALAS, this argument fell on deaf ears in the Taipei High Administrative Court, and we also lost on appeal to the Supreme Administrative Court.
While this example does involve administrative law matters, and not civil or criminal matters, it does give you some “insight” into the thinking or reasoning of the Taiwanese judges.
A related problem in dealing with such difficulties is that there is no firm consensus in Taiwanese administrative agencies that the Taiwan civil law even applies to “foreigners.” The readers of this forumosa.com website forum may find this totally unbelieveable, but my years of experience in dealing with Taiwanese administrative agencies and the administrative courts leads me to believe that it is true. As a result, different judges may have different opinions on such matters, and that is another level of complications …
– Richard W. Hartzell
