Really? I have to support him?

"Oh God! This man actually wants me to support him for three months!" said a female client in a fury. At first, I thought it was a matrimonial case.

Listening further, I learned that a few days ago, as the client was driving home from work and turned right following the directions of a traffic volunteer, a man on a motorcycle crashed into the rear right side of her car. Convinced she was not at fault, she still took the man to a renowned teaching hospital for a thorough check-up and treatment, which cost her a considerable amount of money.

At the time, the man thought it was just a minor injury and even blamed her for making a fuss. Who would have thought that a few weeks later, the man called to say that he felt unwell after returning home and went to a traditional Chinese medicine clinic for an examination. The TCM practitioner believed he had internal injuries and needed to rest for three months, demanding that she cover his lost wages for these months. I asked her what kind of work the man did. She dejectedly replied, "He is unemployed, so that's why he said I have to support him!"

With the economic downturn these days, it is possible for people to make exorbitant demands through traffic accident cases. Therefore, I asked her whether she was at fault, because the attribution of fault liability involves whether she would bear criminal liability for negligent injury, and fault ratios are also referenced when calculating the amount of damages. The preliminary analysis report on the causes of the traffic accident from the Traffic Police Corps concluded that she failed to yield to oncoming traffic when making a right turn, and therefore she should bear full responsibility for the accident's negligence. However, I still advised her to apply for an appraisal with the Vehicle Accident鑑定 Committee. After all, she made the right turn in reliance on the traffic volunteer's directions, and whether she should bear full fault liability is indeed debatable.

"If it is determined that I bear fault liability, do I really have to support him for three months?" she asked dejectedly.

Not necessarily. Although according to Article 193 of the Civil Code, the person who caused an accident shall compensate the injured party for the loss of or reduction in working capacity, the claimant must first prove that their injury has objectively caused a short-term inability to work or difficulty in working. Therefore, that man must provide medical proof that he indeed needs three months of rest and is unable to work; he cannot just rest because he wants to and expect her to support him for three months for free.

※ Published in: United Daily News