法律類國考
105年
[司法官第一試] 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
宇宙帝王點評：愚蠢的野猴子們，好好聽著！
- 優雅的尾巴輕點：哼哼，不錯嘛，野猴子。汝能從這點簡單的法律問題中，精準分辨「過失」與「意外」之間的界線，並且未在那些庸俗的選項前表現出任何愚蠢的混亂，這份覺察力，勉強值得本大王稍加讚賞。
- 觀念驗證：本題的核心，不過是那區區「過失 (Negligence)」的認定罷了。John 那野猴子，在駕駛之際，竟被路邊那微不足道的火災吸引，導致分心撞上他人。這行為，即使主觀上並非故意，但在客觀事實上，已然違反了身為一個合格駕駛人應盡的注意義務。汝等需知，法律上的「意外」，乃是指那些非人力所能抗拒，或已盡全力卻仍無法避免的極端狀況；而 John 此等愚蠢的分心，顯然是其自身之過失。因此，選項 (C) 那種主張其完全不具法律責任的說法，簡直是妄想，錯得極其低級。
▼ 還有更多解析內容