Suing the State: Taiwan’s Compensation Law vs. Việt Nam’s Legal Shortcomings

On the morning of Sept. 17, 2026, a heavy downpour in Hà Nội claimed the life of a first-year university student. After his motorbike was discovered near a storm drain at the end of Viên Street in Đông Ngạc ward, his body was found the following day at an outfall into the Nhuệ River, approximately one kilometer away. [1]

According to the Tuổi Trẻ newspaper, the company responsible for maintaining the drainage system confirmed that no workers were on duty and no warning signs were posted at the flooded location during the incident. [2] A company representative explained that the widespread nature of the rain meant that workers had to be prioritized for main roads.

However, this explanation does not resolve the issue of responsibility. Many similar accidents have occurred in Việt Nam, where questions regarding accountability and victim compensation often remain unanswered.

In contrast, when a family in Taiwan lost a loved one during a night of flooding rain six years ago, they refused to let the case end with the word “accident.” They chose, instead, to take the government to court.

Suing Under the State Compensation Law

On May 22, 2020, heavy rain flooded a road in Hunei District, Kaohsiung, Taiwan. As Ou Junjia rode his motorbike through the area, the water swept him away, causing him to fall into a deep, uncovered drainage ditch alongside the road, where he tragically drowned. [3] The ditch, which was wider than the road itself, lacked any protective railing or low wall to prevent travelers from falling in.

Arguing that the accident stemmed from government negligence, the family pointed out that authorities had neither posted warning signs nor restricted traffic when conditions became dangerous. Furthermore, no guardrails had been installed along the ditch. 

As such, his parents sued the Kaohsiung City Government, the Maintenance Office of the city’s Public Works Bureau, and the Irrigation Agency of the Ministry of Agriculture. They sought a total of more than NT$7.25 million (more than 5.9 billion đồng) to cover lost financial support, funeral costs, and emotional damages.

To hold the government accountable, the family relied on two specific provisions of Taiwan’s State Compensation Law. [4]

First, they cited Article 2, asserting that public officials failed to warn the public, cordon off the area, or restrict access to the flooded road. The appeals court, however, rejected this argument, finding insufficient evidence that the government was aware of the danger and had intentionally or negligently failed to act.

Their second basis was Article 3, which mandates that the state must pay compensation if a defect in the establishment or management of a public facility causes harm to a person’s life, body, personal liberty, or property. This article also applies to public facilities managed by private organizations or individuals, meaning the state cannot evade liability simply by outsourcing the work.

Article 9 further specifies that the responsible agency, the facility’s managing agency, or the entrusting agency is obligated to pay the compensation for damages under Articles 2 and 3. If the responsible agency is unidentifiable or if jurisdiction is disputed, citizens can ask a higher-level agency to decide. Should that higher-level agency fail to determine liability within 20 days, people may seek compensation directly from them.

However, Taiwanese law dictates that citizens cannot immediately file a lawsuit for state compensation. They must first give the government an opportunity to resolve the matter out of court. Specifically, Article 10 requires the injured party to submit a written claim to the obligated agency, which must then enter into negotiations. An agreement reached between both sides becomes enforceable in writing, compelling the agency to fulfill its promises.

To prevent government agencies from using these negotiations to delay cases indefinitely, Article 11 allows citizens to sue in three scenarios:

• The agency refuses to pay.
• The agency receives the claim but does not begin negotiations within 30 days.
• Negotiations fail to produce an agreement within 60 days.

Returning to the Ou Junjia case, the Kaohsiung District Court initially rejected all of the family’s claims on Sept. 15, 2023. [5] Unwilling to accept the decision, his parents appealed.

On Nov. 13, 2024, the appeals court partially overturned the ruling, ordering the road maintenance office of Kaohsiung City and the Irrigation Agency of the Ministry of Agriculture to jointly pay compensation. The court awarded the family more than NT 1.31 million (more than 1 billion đồng), comprising NT 1.2 million for his parents’ emotional damages and NT 121,300 for funeral costs. 

This amount was far less than the NT 7.25 million the family had sought.

The appeals court reasoned that both parents possessed their own assets and income and did not rely on their son for financial support. Furthermore, the court determined that the victim bore half the responsibility for the incident because he continued riding in dangerous conditions without taking necessary precautions. 

As a result, the family was awarded only 50% of the recognized losses.

Easy to Sue, Difficult to Win

Since Taiwan’s State Compensation Law took effect in 1981, the number of compensation claims against the state has risen significantly. [6] From 2020 to 2025, people filed an average of 2,410 compensation claims with the government each year. That is nearly three times the annual average in the 1990s and about six times the yearly average in the 1980s. [7]

Litigation rates against the government have also risen since the law took effect. During the 2000s, an average of nearly 750 compensation lawsuits were filed each year, representing a fourfold increase from the 1990s and a 17-fold increase from the 1980s. Although the annual average of lawsuits decreased to just over 360 between 2020 and 2025, it remains more than eight times higher than the 1980s baseline.

However, governments at every level have many ways to deflect responsibility as defendants in these cases.

Consider a 2022 case in Hengchun Township, Pingtung County, where a man surnamed Yao tripped on a raised brick along a path near the old city walls. [8] He suffered a broken vertebra in his neck from the fall and later died. When his family sued the Hengchun Township government, officials attempted to shift the blame, arguing that the county was the actual managing authority. They also claimed that because Yao was wearing earphones, he was inattentive and should bear 50% of the fault.

The appeals court ruled that the township was responsible for the path’s maintenance and had managed it negligently. The court also dismissed the shared-blame argument, stating that wearing earphones held no causal link to tripping over a brick. Refusing to concede, the township appealed to the Supreme Court. In October 2026, the Supreme Court rejected the appeal and ordered the Hengchun Township government to pay the victim’s family NT 3.84 million (more than 3.1 billion đồng).

Conversely, cases that appear straightforward for victims can also collapse entirely.

Also in 2022, a 60-year-old man surnamed Zhuang fell while riding his motorbike in Changhua County, suffering a head injury that left him in a vegetative state. [9] Blaming a pothole, his family sued the Changhua County government for NT 8.55 million (nearly 7 billion đồng). In defense, the county argued that Zhuang’s underlying high blood pressure and diabetes were the true causes of the incident.

After reviewing dashcam footage, the court found the following:

• Zhuang kept riding for a distance after hitting the pothole.
• The front of the motorbike then suddenly tilted to one side.
• Zhuang made no attempt to control the bike or keep his balance, and he and the bike fell to the road without any reaction to break the fall.
• The blood at the scene was more than 12 meters from the pothole, and there were no impact marks or blood near the pothole itself.

A hospital forensic report confirmed that the location of the bleeding in the victim’s brain matched typical cases of hypertensive brain hemorrhage rather than external trauma. Hence, the court concluded that the accident had no direct causal link to the government’s road management duties and rejected the family’s claim.

Taiwan’s statistics on state compensation claims from 2020 to 2025 show that, on average each year: [10]

• Fewer than 10% of new claims ended in a compensation agreement.
• More than 15% went to court.
• Fewer than 3% resulted in a court award.

Việt Nam only passed its first Law on State Compensation Liability in 2009. [11] At a May 2026 workshop regarding a draft amendment to the 2017 Law on State Compensation Liability, Deputy Minister of Justice Nguyễn Thanh Ngọc said many people “do not clearly understand the process and procedures or worry about lengthy proceedings and costs, so they do not file compensation claims, even though damage has actually occurred.” [12]

Annual reports for 2021 , 2022, 2023, and 2024 indicate an average of just over 33 new state compensation claims nationwide each year in Việt Nam. [13] [14] [15] [16] This figure is merely 1.4% of the compensation claims filed in Taiwan over the same period, despite Taiwan having a population that is less than one-quarter of Việt Nam’s.

---

Thúc Kháng wrote this analysis in Vietnamese and published it in Luật Khoa Magazine on October 11, 2026. The Vietnamese Magazine translated it into English.