您的瀏覽器不支援JavaScript語法,但是並不影響您獲取本網站的內容
司法院內部與外部景觀圖片動畫
::: | news | 大法官 | 案件審理 | 大法官解釋 | 相關法規 | Q&A |
 
多條件查詢頁面按鈕

 

:::
 

大法官解釋表頭

(釋字第 531 號 )      友善列印PRINT  
Interpretation

J.Y.
Interpretation

NO.531 

Date

2001/10/19

Issue

Does the Act Governing the Punishment of Violation of Road Traffic Regulations, which prohibits a person from ever reinstating his/her driver's license once it has been revoked because he/she fled the scene of an accident he/she caused establish such a necessary public policy that it fully conforms to the intent of Article 23 of the Constitution?

Holding

  Article 62, Paragraph 2, of Act Governing the Punishment of Violation of Road Traffic Regulations (amended and promulgated on May 21, 1986, and later amended again and incorporated into Article 62, Paragraph 1, of the same Act on January 22, 1997) states that any vehicle operator who causes an accident resulting in the injury or death of another person, shall provide immediate assistance to the victims of the accident or shall take other necessary measures, and report the accident to the police. The aforementioned provision also provides that the wrongdoer must not flee from the scene of the accident and will have his/her driver's license suspended if he/she violates the provision.
  
  The purpose of the provision is to ensure road safety, protect the rights and interests of others, and maintain the social order, and is therefore consistent with Article 23 of the Constitution (See J.Y. Interpretation No. 284). In addition, Article 67, Paragraph 1, of the Act Governing the Punishment of Violation of Road Traffic Regulations specifically states that any vehicle operator whose driver's license has been suspended for fleeing the scene of a hit-and-run accident he/she caused may not have his/her driver's license reinstated. (This provision was later amended and promulgated to prohibit any vehicle operator whose driver's license has been suspended because of the hit-and-run car accident from ever having his/her driver's license reinstated). The aforementioned provision is a necessary public policy to safeguard the lives and health of victims of vehicular accidents. The provision also imposes the duty of care on vehicle operators and is essential to maintain the social order and improve the public interest. The provision is therefore consistent with Article 23 of the Constitution. However, as for the vehicle operator whose driver's license has been suspended because of the hit-and-run accident he/she caused, whether he/she shall be given another chance to have his/her driver's license reinstated with certain conditions or within a certain period of time if he/she is able to return to the society or has been rehabilitated, the competent authorities should review the relevant provisions and consider revising those provisions to make them conform to the legislative intent of the Constitution in protecting the rights and interests of the people.

Reasoning

  A vehicle operator who causes an accident resulting in the injury or death of a person or persons shall provide immediate assistance to the victim(s) of the accident or take other necessary measures to mitigate damages. It is necessary to regulate vehicle operators strictly in this matter because if such an operator causes an accident and promptly flees from the scene without providing any immediate assistance to the victim(s), it will become difficult to impose liability on the wrongdoer, injured victims may die due to the delay of medical treatment, and victims’ families may not be able to seek compensation from the wrongdoer.
  Article 62, Paragraph 2, of Act Governing the Punishment of Violation of Road Traffic Regulations (amended and promulgated on May 21, 1986, and amended again and incorporated into Article 62, Paragraph 1, of the same Act on January 22, 1997) states that any vehicle operator who causes an accident resulting in the injury or death of someone shall provide immediate assistance to the victims of the accident or shall take other necessary measures, and report the accident to the police. The aforementioned provision also provides that the wrongdoer must not flee from the scene and will have his/her driver's license suspended if he/she violates the provision.

  The purpose of the provision is to improve road safety, protect the rights and interests of others, and maintain the social order, and is therefore consistent with Article 23 of the Constitution (See J.Y. Interpretation No. 284). In addition, Article 67, Paragraph 1, of the Act specifically states that any vehicle operator whose driver's license has been suspended because of the hit-and-run accident he/she caused may not have his/her driver's license reinstated. (This provision was later amended and promulgated to prohibit any vehicle operator whose driver's license has been suspended because of the hit-and-run car accident from ever having his/her driver's license reinstated). The aforementioned provision is a necessary public policy to safeguard the lives and health of victims of vehicular accidents. The provision also imposes the duty of care on vehicle operators and is essential to maintain the social order and improve the public interest. The provision is therefore consistent with Article 23 of the Constitution. However, as for the vehicle operator whose driver's license has been suspended because of the hit-and-run accident he/she caused, whether he/she shall be given another chance to have his/her driver's license reinstated with certain conditions or within a certain period of time if he/she is able to return to the society or has been rehabilitated, the competent authorities should review the relevant provisions and consider revising those provisions to make them conform to the legislative intent of the Constitution in protecting the rights and interests of the people.

' Translated by Li-Chih Lin, Esq., J.D.

 

BACK

 
 
::: Home 中文(Chinese) Site Map
 
使用聲明 Copyright©2004 JUSTICES OF THE CONSTITUTIONSL COURT. JUDICIAL YUAN 本網站建議使用解析度為1024*768全彩及Explorer5.5以上瀏覽器     通過A+等級無障礙網頁檢測
多條件查詢頁面連結點 解釋爭點總覽頁面連結點