法律類國考
105年
[司律第一試] 綜合法學(二)(公司法、保險法、票據法、證券交易法、強制執行
第 57 題
John, driving his truck on the street, was attracted by a burning car on his left side, then hit Mary, causing her personal injury. John felt sorry for Mary, but did not offer anything to compensate Mary. Which of the following is INCORRECT at law?
- A Mary may sue John on negligence to recover damages for her personal injury.
- B John is not held criminally liable for his negligence unless Mary places criminal charge against John within six months after the incident.
- C John is not legally liable for this incident at all for it is no more than an accident.
- D The fact that Mary is covered by accident insurance is not a defense for John not to compensate Mary.
思路引導 VIP
若一位駕駛者在道路上因觀看路邊熱鬧而未能看清前方路況，這在法律評價上，應歸類為『不可抗力的天災意外』，還是『應注意而未注意的人為疏忽』？而這兩者對於『是否需承擔法律責任』的結論會有什麼關鍵性的差異？
🤖
AI 詳解
AI 專屬家教
專業點評：精準識破法律卸責之詞
- 大力肯定：做得好！你能敏銳查覺民事責任中「過失」與「意外」的界線，並在干擾選項中保持冷靜，展現了扎實的法理邏輯。
- 觀念驗證：本題核心在於過失 (Negligence) 的認定。John 駕駛時受路邊火災吸引而分心撞人，主觀上雖非故意，但客觀上違反了駕駛人的注意義務。法律上的「意外」通常指不可抗力或已盡注意義務仍無法避免之事故；本件 John 顯有過失，故選項 (C) 主張其完全不具法律責任是明顯錯誤的。
▼ 還有更多解析內容
💬 其他同學也在問
1
為什麼 B 選項不對？