Introduction

The advancement of technology and the evolution of business models have increasingly complicated the allocation of tort liability. The traditional framework, in which a natural person acts as the direct tortfeasor, has gradually loosened, with legal entities now emerging as primary subjects of tort liability. Under Article 188 of the Civil Code, even if a legal entity is not the direct perpetrator of a tortious act, it shall still bear joint and several liability alongside its employees if the employees, in the course of performing their duties, cause harm to a third party.

When a legal entity is held liable for a tort, it becomes necessary to explore the scope of damages. This article takes tortious acts causing injury as an example, focusing on judicial practice regarding the recognition standards for compensation items such as nursing expenses and mental distress damages, and provides a systematic analysis.

I. Claim for Family Caregiving Expenses

With regard to family caregiving expenses, judicial practice has generally adopted a relatively lenient stance. Even where care is provided by family members out of affection and no actual payment is made, the labor expended is clearly capable of being valued in monetary terms. Such benefits arising from a familial relationship should not inure to the benefit of the tortfeasor. Accordingly, they should be treated in the same manner as ordinary caregiving situations, and the victim is deemed to have suffered damages equivalent to reasonable caregiving expenses, which should be compensated by the tortfeasor. The injured party need only submit a medical certificate issued by a hospital indicating that “care by another person is required for two months” or similar wording. Even if no professional caregiver is hired and care is provided solely by family members assisting with daily activities, the victim is still entitled to claim reasonable caregiving expenses (see Civil Judgment by the Supreme Court Docket No. 89-Tai-Shang-Zi-1749).

II. Claim for Lifetime Care Expenses

In cases of more severe injuries, the issue of claiming lifetime care expenses may arise. Compared with medical expenses incurred immediately after an accident, the amount claimed for lifetime care is often significantly larger and requires sufficient evidence to demonstrate the necessity of lifelong caregiving.

In terms of calculation, judicial practice typically estimates the victim’s remaining life expectancy using the “Simple Life Table for Taiwan” published by the Ministry of the Interior. The total one-time payment for care expenses is then calculated according to the Hoffman method, deducting the interest over the period.

However, in contrast to the relatively lenient approach applied to family caregiving expenses, courts adopt a notably stricter standard when reviewing claims for lifetime care. The victim must submit both a hospital medical certificate and an expert appraisal report, demonstrating that “24-hour full-time care for life is required” in order to meet the eligibility criteria (see Civil Judgment by the Yilan District Court Docket No. 110-Chien-Shang-Zi-40).

Even if the victim holds a physical or mental disability certificate due to the injury, the court may still limit compensation to full-time care expenses only for the actual period of hospitalization, rejecting claims for future lifetime care. The main rationale is that disability certificates require re-assessment and are not permanent, and after surgery and several months of rehabilitation, the victim may regain the ability to walk independently and manage basic daily activities, making continuous full-time care objectively unnecessary. Accordingly, the claim for lifetime care does not meet the legal standard (see Civil Judgment by the Taichung District Court Docket No. 108-Chung-Su-Zi-169). Courts determine the necessity of lifetime care based on the victim’s actual functional status following treatment, rather than solely on the severity of the injury at the time of diagnosis.

III. Claim for Solatium

Article 195, Paragraph 1 of the Civil Code provides that the victim may claim compensation for non-pecuniary damage (solatium). Paragraph 3 of the same Article further expands the scope of eligible claimants, allowing the victim’s parents, children, and spouse to also claim damages where their personality or familial interests have been infringed and the circumstances are sufficiently serious.

However, what constitutes “sufficient seriousness” remains unsettled in judicial practice, and no consistent standard has yet been established, making this issue particularly noteworthy. In one traffic accident case in which a child suffered mild intellectual disability requiring full-time care, the Supreme Court appeared to affirm that the circumstances reached the threshold of seriousness, thereby allowing the parents to claim solatium under Article 195, Paragraph 3 of the Civil Code (see Civil Judgment by the Supreme Court Docket No. 105-Tai-Shang-Zi-2109). In contrast, in another case in which a mother became permanently paraplegic following an elevator accident, the Supreme Court held that although the children would inevitably suffer emotional distress, the circumstances did not meet the threshold of “seriousness,” and therefore rejected the children’s claim for solatium (see Civil Judgment by the Supreme Court Docket No. 104-Tai-Shang-Zi-1364). In addition, the High Court has taken a more restrictive approach, holding that Article 195, Paragraph 3 should be applied strictly, and that only cases involving conditions such as a vegetative state or a declaration of guardianship—where the victim is unable to take care of themselves and must rely on long-term care by parents or children—would satisfy the requirement of “serious circumstances” (see Civil Judgment by the Taiwan High Court Taichung Branch Docket No. 109-Shang-Zi-430).

Conclusion

With the advancement of technology and the increasingly specialized division of labor within corporate organizations, cases in which legal entities bear joint and several liability for tortious acts committed by their employees are expected to continue rising. Once tort liability is established, it becomes necessary to further clarify the scope of damages. Courts apply different standards in recognizing the scope of damages for tortious acts causing injury, and variations in individual case circumstances can significantly influence judicial decisions. It is therefore advisable for enterprises, when a tortious incident occurs, to promptly clarify the facts and the allocation of legal responsibility, assess the potential scope of future claims for compensation, and consult professional legal counsel as appropriate, in order to effectively manage legal risks.

(The article is originally in Chinese which can be found here.)