車輛行車事故是用路人所需承擔的風險，但事故議題的嚴重性長期以來居高不下；事故當事人經由瞬間碰撞使個人生命、身體與財產造成損害，而事故所衍生的爭議更造成當事人或關係人在時間、金錢與社會成本上難以估計的消耗。面對事故爭議，在現有機制下雙方當事人可經由調解達成共識和解，亦可透過提起司法訴訟尋求審判裁決。近來由於訴訟制度面臨訴訟案件量不斷成長、訴訟資源不足等問題，著手修法希望運用調解、和解等制度，減省當事人及法院勞費，強化和緩機制取代雙方對立攻擊；透過和解，當事人雙方不完全尋求責任分配，以紛爭化解、合作得到雙贏結果，而司法訴訟則是輸贏零合的局面。在司法訴訟尋求替代訴制度的轉換情形下，實需瞭解影響當事人或關係人堅持訴訟未求和解的原因為何，由於國內外研究中少有相關統計與研究，故本研究針對行車事故當事人或關係人選擇訴訟或和解意向與決策因素進行前導式探討。
在相關研究有限的情形下，本研究首先針對十一個行車事故案例之當事人或關係人進行訪談，透過訪談結果與文獻回顧分別利用質化與量化分析方法找出影響因素。在質化分析方面，利用較具程序系統的紮根理論，以開放編碼、主軸編碼與選擇編碼三種編碼交互過程做訪談逐字稿分析。量化分析則針對事故屬性、當事人情緒、法律與訴訟認知、事故處理原則、金錢賠償、事故損害與事故鑑定等構面採用問卷調查方式，以台南區與高屏澎區車輛行車事故鑑定委員會到會說明之當事人或關係人為調查對象，說明事故當事人或關係人選擇意向與特性，並利用Logistic迴歸進行影響因素分析。最後綜合質化與量化結果，指出事故當事人或關係人選擇訴訟或和解意向與主要之影響因素。
研究最後利用質化分析共發展出七十八個開放編碼、十三個主軸編碼與三個選擇編碼，歸納出事故處理決策行為模式，模式分為事故處理的期望目的、決策過程與影響因素。在量化研究結果，當事人事故屬性、保險、情緒、司法信任、公道正義重視、事故損害與鑑定意見對於事故處理傾向與顯著差異。其中我方任意第三人加重保險情況、出庭經驗、處理者身份、家庭年收入、我方當事人傷亡情況與公道正義六個變項可用來預測事故可能之選擇傾向，其中事故處理者身份對整體預測的影響程度最大，公道正義的重視程度影響最小。研究所得對於事故處理傾向和解與訴訟兩群體特性可有初步瞭解，以供事故當事人或關係人以及相關調解機關於事故處理之參考，減少事故雙方不必要之對立情況。

Traffic accident is the risk undertaken by drivers on the road. But the severity of the accident topic remains high discussion for a long time. Traffic accidents cause serious loss of life, health and property. And the disputes that derive from traffic accidents even make great consumption on the parties’ time, money and social cost. With traffic accident disputes, both parties can choose settlement or litigation. Recently, litigation system was amended to strengthen mediation and settlement system. It was due to some problems such as continuously growth of lawsuit cases and the lack of litigation system resource. Mediation and settlement system were set as focus in order to reduce the parties’ litigation expense and the consumption of litigation resource and to provide more effective and powerful litigation system for the cases that really needs to be judicial interpreted. Through settlement, both parties do not totally seek to assign in responsibility, and get the win-win result with the dispute. Otherwise, judicial litigation ends in zero-win outcome. During the switch situation of system substituting, it is important to find out why the parties persist in litigation. But there are rare relevant researches about this topic. Thus this research as a explore discussion is to find out the factors that influence the parties’ intention of accident dispute.
Under the lack of relevant researches, this research interviews ten traffic accident cases to get more sense about the parties’ treatment and as data base at first. Then qualitative and quantity methodologies are adopted to find out the influencing factors from the ten interview reports and literature review. On the one hand, grounded theory with its’ systematic three coding process: open, axial and selective among qualitative methodology is adopted to analyze the interview reports. On the other, some sorts of hypothesis according to literature and interview reports such as: social-demographic, emotion, litigation cognitive, accident treatment, compensation, overall loss and traffic accident authenticating outcome are proposed to explain the influencing factors of the parties’ intention with quantity methodologies. And the attending parties of Tainan Traffic Accident Investigation Committee and KPP (Kaohsiung, Ping-Tung and Penghu counties) Traffic Accident Investigation Committee are as research samples to explain the traffic accident parties’ intention, influencing factors and characteristic between litigation and settlement. Finally, comprehensive outcomes of qualitative and quantity methodologies are advanced and point out the main influencing factors of the parties’ intention between litigation and settlement.
This research develops 78 open codings 13 axial codings and 3 selective codings with qualitative methodology. And a decision model of traffic accident that is composed of expectation, decision process and influencing factors is expanded. In the result of quantity methodologies indicates the parties’ intention of traffic accident treatment are difference on characteristic, insurance, emotion, justice trust, the value of justice, overall loss and traffic accident authenticating outcome. The parties’ intention of traffic accident treatment can be predicted by commercial automobile liability insurance, appearance experience, disposer, household income, the severity level of death –and –dismemberment and the value of justice, and among them the influence degree that disposer predicts to the whole is the greatest, the value of justice is minimum. The acquisition of this research provides a initiative understanding of the characteristic of the two groups which intend to litigation and settlement. That can refer some information to the parties and the relevant mediation authority to reduce the antagonism of the traffic accident parties.

1.內政部警政署統計處2006年道路交通事故死亡人數。
2.王重吉，調解制度之功能與實務運作，司法院研究年報第22輯第7篇，2002年。
3.王濟川、郭志剛，Logistic迴歸模型-方法及應用，台北：五南，2003年。
4.行政院衛生署統計處2006年全國十大死因死亡統計。
5.李奉儒、吳芝儀譯，質的評鑑與研究，台北：桂冠，1995年。
6.李克聰、劉冠汝、陳昱豪，「反光車牌對車輛肇事影響之成本推估」，交通事故與交通違規之社會成本推估研討會論文，頁41-33，2000年。
7.李宗哲，入口網站使用者選擇行為及效用函數構建之研究，國立交通大學運輸科技與管理學系碩士論文，2003年。
8.李清松，民眾對道路交通事故處理及鑑定滿意度研究，輔仁大學應用統計學研究所碩士論文，2002。
9.汪明生、朱斌妤，談判理論與技巧I，衝突管理，台北：五南，1999年。
10.阮森，鄉鎮市調解條例制度簡介：兼評鄉鎮市調解條例修正草案，立法院院聞第22卷第2期。
11.林本炫，紮根理論研究法評介，質性研究方法與資料分析，嘉義：南華大學教育社會學研究所，2005年。
12.吳明隆，SPSS統計應用學習實務-問卷分析與應用統計，台北：知城，2003年。
13.許士軍，「定性研究在管理學上的重要性」，中原管理學報，第24卷第二期，1996。
14.陳鴻斌，車禍刑事責任，台北：書泉，1997年。
15.陳順宇，迴歸分析，第二版，台北：華泰，1997年。
16.張有恆，運輸經濟學，台北：華泰，1999年。
17.陳子儀，「從道路交通事故國家經濟損失探討交通安全對策與社會責任」，交通事故與交通違規之社會成本推估研討會論文，頁423-440，2000年。
18.陳向明，社會科學質的研究，台北：五南，2002年。
19.陳彩稚，「我國過失侵權行為與責任保險人身傷害賠償之分析」，保險專刊，第19 卷第1期，頁41-74，2003年。
20.陳高村、許志誠，「道路交通事故損害賠償成本推估之研究」，運輸計畫季刊，第32卷，第2期，頁365-390，2003年。
21.陳順宇，多變量分析，第三版，台北：華泰，2004年。
22.陳順宇、鄭碧娥，統計學第四版，台北：華泰，2004年。
23.陳高村，道路交通事故處理與鑑定第二版，桃園：尚暐，2004年。
24.陳申浩，任意汽車第三責任保險對被保險人行為態度影響之研究，朝陽科技大學保險金融管理系碩士論文，2005年。
25.齊力，質性研究方法概論，質性研究方法與資料分析，嘉義：南華大學教育社會學研究所，2005年。。
26.黃國平、羅文利，「不同鑑定機關行車事故鑑定結果爭議」，交通學報第五卷第二期，頁19-36，2005。
27.許育典、盧浩平，「行車事故鑑定意見的法律分析」，94年度車輛行車故鑑定研究中心成果技術推廣研討會，頁1-46-1-57，2005年。
28.張茂森，如何成為談判高手，台北：漢昇書屋，1996年。
29.楊憲國，以類神經網路推導路口交通事故成因與改善之研究，逢甲大學交通工程與管理學系碩士論文，2002年。
30.劉必榮，「不對稱結構下的談判行為分析」，東吳政治學報，第二期，第 219-267頁，1993年。
31.劉必榮，談判聖經，台北：商周，1996年。
32.蔡婉如，負面情緒對談判的影響，國立交通大學管理科學系碩士論文，2007年。
33.鄭惠玲，車輛行車事故鑑定對保險理賠影響之分析，逢甲大學保險學系碩士班碩士論文，2004年。
34.潘淑滿，質性研究-理論與應用，心理：台北，2002年。
35.顏月珠，實用無母數統計方法，1986年。
36.Anselm Strauss, Juliet Corbin, 質性研究概論，徐宗國譯，台北：巨流 1997年。
37.Anselm Strauss, Juliet Corbin,質性研究入門：紮根理論研究方法，嘉義：濤石文化，2001年。
38.Alan Agresti著，類別資料分析導論，劉應興譯，台北：華泰，2003年。
39.Gerard I. Nierenberg，談判的策略，鄭麗淑編譯，台北：桂冠，1985年。
40.Garoline，創傷治療精神分析取向，許育光、黃慧韓、王臨風譯，五南：台北，2007。
41.Matthew B. Miles,A. Michael Huberman,質性研究資料分析，張芬芬譯，台北：雙葉，2005年。
42.Neuman, W.，社會研究方法：質化與量化取向，台北：揚智文化，2000年。
43.Antil,J.H.，Conceptualizing and Operationzation of Involvement, Advances in consumer Research.1984.
44.Ann Lena Andersson, Bunketorp Olle, Allebeck Peter, “High Rate of Psychosocial Complications after Road Traffic Injuries”, Injury, Vol. 28, No. 8, pp.539-543,1997.
45.Al Ghamdi Ali S., “Using Logistic Regression to Estimate The Influence of Accident Factors on Accident Severity, Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol.34,pp729-741,2002.
46.Barry, B., Oliver, R. L., “Affect in Dyadic negotiation: A model Research Lecture, University of California, Los Angeles and Propositions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 67, 127–143,1996.
47.Cochran, W.G., “The Comparison of Percentages in Matched Samples”, Biometrika, Vol 37 (3-4), 1950.
48.Yu Chiun Chiou, “An Artificial Neural Network-Based Expert System for The Appraisal of Two-Car Crash Accidents”, Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 38 , pp. 777–785, 2006.
49.Denzin,N.K., The Research Act: A Theoretical Introduction to Sociological Methods, New York: McGraw-Hill, 1978.
50.Daniel Druckman, Mara Olekalns, “Emotions in Negotiation”, Group Decision and Negotiation , Vol. 17 (1), 1-11, 2008.
51.Gay,L.R., Educational Research competencies for analysis and application., New York:Macmillan, 1992.
52.John R. Allison, “Five Ways to Keep Disputes Out of Court”, Harvard Business Review, pp.166-177, January-February ,1990.
53.James A. Wall, Jr. Rona Roberts Callister,” Conflict and Its Management”, Journal of Management, Vol. 21（3）, pp.515-558, 1995.
54.Joseph F.Hair, Jr.,William C. Black, Barry J. Babin, Rolph E. Anderson, Ronald L. Tatham, Multivariate Data Analyis, Perason Education, Sixth edition, 2006.
55.Ken-ichi Ohbuchi, Mariko Suzuki, “Three Dimensions of Conflict Issues and Their Effects On resolution Strategies in Organizational Setting”, The International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol.14（1）,pp. 61-73, 2003.
56.Kersten, G.., “The Science and Engineering of E-negotiations: An Introduction”, Proceeding of the Hawaii International Conference on System Science, 2003.
57.Lincoln,Y.S., Guba ,E.G..,Naturalistic Inquiry, England:Beverly Hills, 1985.
58.Lo, A.W., “Logit Versus Discriminate Analysis: A Specification Test and Application to Corporate Bankruptcies,”Journal of Econometrics, 151-178 1986.
59.Moshe Ben-Akiva, Steven R.Lerman, Discrete Choice Analysis: Theory and Application to Travel Demand, The MIT Press, 1987.
60.Mohammed A. Quddus, Robert B. Noland, Hoong Chor Chin,.” An Analysis of Motorcycle Injury and Vehicle Damage Severity Using Ordered Probit Models”, Journal of Safety Research. Vol.33, pp.445-462, 2002.
61.Naresh R. Pandit,”The Qualitative Report”, Vol. 2, 1996.
62.Neil Brewer, Patricia Mitchell, Nathan Weber, ” Gender Role, Organizational Status,and Conflict Management Styles”, The International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol.13（1）, pp.78-94, 2002.
63.Numally, J. C., Psychometric Theory, New York: McGraw-Hill, 2006.
64.Robin K. Henson, “Understanding Internal Consistency Reliability Estimates: A Conceptual Primer on Coefficient Alpha”, Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, Vol. 34, 2001.
65.Scott Menard, Applied Logistic Regression Analysis, Sage:London, 1995.
66.Scott J. Long, Jeremy Freese, Regression Models for Categorical dependent variables using stata, Stata press: Texas ,second Edition, 2006.
67.Todd B. Carver, Albert A. Vondra, “Alternative Dispute Resolution-Why It Dosen't Work and Why It Does”,Harvard Business Review, pp.120-130, May-June ,1994.
68.World Health Organization, World report on road traffic injury prevention: summary, 2004.