Taiwan Mother Loses Lawsuit Over Daughter's Death, Cites Court Error in Insurance Payout Dispute

A mother's legal battle for compensation after her 18-year-old daughter was killed in a traffic accident has taken a difficult turn. The lower court ruled against her claim, stating she had already received NT$7 million (approximately US$217,000) in compulsory insurance payouts, which exceeded the NT$2.97 million (approximately US$92,000) she could claim from the engineering company operating the crane involved.

The accident occurred last June when a crane, driven by a 77-year-old man, ran over the daughter, identified only by her surname Cai, on a Taipei street. The crane driver passed away in October, and his family renounced inheritance. The mother then sought compensation from the engineering company the crane was affiliated with.

“

The court's finding that the plaintiff did not dispute having received NT$7 million in compulsory insurance is a significant error and completely inconsistent with the facts.

However, the mother's lawyer has issued a statement refuting the court's finding that she did not dispute having received NT$7 million in compulsory insurance. The lawyer claims this was a significant error in the court's record and that neither the mother nor her legal team ever admitted to or did not dispute receiving this amount during court proceedings. They assert that court records, including audio recordings and transcripts, do not contain such an admission.

“

The court records of both oral arguments do not contain this statement, and the plaintiff and her lawyers have never admitted or not disputed receiving NT$7 million in compulsory insurance on any court date.

Furthermore, the mother's legal team clarified that they did not delay the lawsuit. They submitted evidence and requested investigations within the court-specified deadlines, even ahead of schedule. The statement argues that the first-instance judgment contains significant flaws in fact-finding and procedural management, infringing upon the mother's basic litigation rights and causing public misunderstanding.

The mother has appealed the decision, seeking to correct what her lawyers describe as substantial factual errors in the initial ruling. The appeal aims to address the court's misinterpretation of the insurance payout and the mother's litigation conduct, hoping for a revised judgment that accurately reflects the circumstances and her entitlement to compensation.

“

The first-instance judgment contains significant flaws in fact-finding and procedural management, which not only infringe upon the plaintiff's basic litigation rights but also lead to undue misunderstanding and attacks from the public.