When a powerful earthquake struck Hualien on Feb. 6, the most seriously damaged building was the Yun Men Tsui Ti (雲門翠堤) building. People naturally had questions about its structural integrity. However, the existing legal framework makes it extremely difficult to determine legal — and especially criminal — accountability in such disasters.
Article 193 of the Criminal Code says: “A contractor or an overseer who endangers public safety by violating an established rule of construction in erecting or demolishing a structure shall be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than three years...”
Because this offense is one of substantive endangerment, it is punishable whether or not the result of a building’s collapse is related to the building’s construction. Here, it would appear that this could be the basis for ascribing liability.
However, the maximum penalty prescribed is three years, and under the old version of the Criminal Code — prior to July 1, 2006 — the statute of limitations for an offense punishable by three years’ or less imprisonment was 10 years. Therefore, if prosecutors want to pursue the matter according to this offense, it might be that no indictment can be made. In which case, those responsible can only be held criminally accountable for the offense of negligent homicide.
A prerequisite for constituting an offense of negligence would be a breach of the duty of care. However, the “established rules of construction” can only be determined through reference to complex construction laws, regulations, and methods and techniques — rules that could have changed over time.
The question of whether the duty of care has been breached cannot be judged based on current laws, but only on the standards at the time of construction. Notably, legal requirements for earthquake resistance have become stricter since the 921 Earthquake of 1999.
However, if the current standards were used in determining whether the duty of care was breached in the construction of buildings built before the 921 Earthquake, any resulting punishment would be one based on retroactive law, which would violate the principle that no penalty should be imposed for an act that is done when there is no law forbidding it.
Even if it is found that there were violations of the established rules of construction, the case would still become caught up in proving cause and effect. Although the prosecution could point out that adjacent buildings had not collapsed as evidence, the builder could equally blame factors such as soil liquefaction and unauthorized alterations made to the building’s primary structure by its occupiers.
Furthermore, a building cannot be built by one person, and this leads to the question of how wide to cast the net.
Even if human failings are found to have occurred, the case will end with a verdict of not guilty, because the accused must be found innocent unless their guilt is proven beyond a reasonable doubt and because in Taiwan professional negligence is not punishable if it does not actually result in death.
The very fact that there are limits to criminal liability in natural disasters highlights the importance of civil claims for damages by the people concerned.
However, given the existence of “one-case construction companies,” which are commonplace in Taiwan, such claims are likely to get mired in drawn-out litigation. Therefore, either the national or local government should assume responsibility for providing legal aid — and even for paying damages or compensation — to protect disaster victims from suffering the secondary injury of being left isolated and helpless.
Wu Ching-chin is an associate professor in Aletheia University’s Department of Law.
Translated by Julian Clegg
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under