汽車交通事故造成之人身及財產上損害,在各主要工業國家均為極重要議題。歐美國家,因為工業化與機動化的歷程較早,所以也較早對交通事故損害設置特別規範。而不論各國侵權行為法採何架構,均同時採行強制保險制度,作為主要或輔助的制度。在數種不同保險制度中,德國採取所謂的責任保險制,已有約70年的歷史,其現行責任保險制的架構設計,一方面係受自己歷史背景的影響,另一方面也是因應1959年斯特拉斯堡協定的要求而為。我國強制汽車責任保險法亦採責任保險制,但已融入美國無過失保險的精神。德國強制汽車保有人責任保險法維持該保險的責任保險性質,以法定併存債務承擔作為第三人直接請求權的設計基礎,使得被害人之侵權行為損害賠償請求權可藉由強制保險來擔保其實現,並以被害人請求權的完全實現為目的,迥異於我國所追求的「基本保障」,應係比較法上的重要素材,並可作為我國法適用上疑義的解釋或修正的參考制度之一。
For all major industrialized nations, automobile accident has always been an extremely crucial yet problematic issue. With a much longer history of industrialization and automobilization, European and American nations already have specialized regulation in place for auto accidents compensation. Particularly, all of them have employed compulsory automobile insurance as part of the scheme. German, amongst all these nations, has chosen and utilized liability insurance as the core of its automobile accidents compensation regulation for over 70 years now; the construction of German Model is a result of its special historical background combined with the requirements from Strasbourg Agreement in 1959. Taiwan has also chosen liability insurance as the theme for our compulsory automobile insurance regulation; however, the formation of the regulation was under a huge influence from the No-Fault insurance originated from U.S.A. As a result, our compulsory automobile liability insurance regulation is a deviation from German liability insurance structure. This issue provides excellent material for comparative law research, and this study will contribute a reference for the actual application of the current regulation and for future amendments of the automobile accidents compensation system.