The Taiwan High Court rendered the 103-Shang-769 Civil Decision of January 20, 2015 (hereinafter, the "Decision"), holding that when unit owners are liable for damages due to injury to another person as a result of the performance of the management committee's duties under condominium regulations, the victim may file a complaint against the management committee in accordance with Article 38, Paragraph 1 of the Apartment and Condominium Administration Law.

According to the facts underlying the Decision, the administrative staff of the Appellee (the Management Committee of the Apollo Building) had failed to clean up the accumulated water on the floor and maintain its dryness in the lobby and to take effective slippery prevention measures. As a result, the Appellant was injured for slipping and falling on the ground due to wet floor after exiting an elevator and filed a complaint against the Appellee to seek compensation for relevant medical treatment expenses.

Article 38 of the Apartment and Condominium Administration Law provides: "The management committee shall have the capacity of a party. When the management committee becomes a plaintiff or a defendant, it is required to inform the unit owners of the main points of the lawsuit at the earliest time."

According to the Decision, if another person is injured due to the performance of duties by the management committee pursuant to condominium regulations and to resolutions adopted during unit owners' meetings to the extent that unit owners shall be liable for damages, although the management committee is not the subject for the rights and obligations of a tort, it shall still be deemed that the victim may choose to file a complaint against the management committee rather than the unit owners as the Appellee by exercising the procedural option and by following Article 38, Paragraph 1 of the Apartment and Condominium Administration Law and the legal theory of litigation assumption. By doing so, private rights can be quickly and easily confirmed and realized to prevent the parties from unnecessary waste of limited judicial resources.

Although it was affirmed in the Decision that the management committee may be the Defendant (Appellee) in this lawsuit, still it was concluded that since the Appellant failed to substantiate the Appellee is negligent and thus liable for damages, the Appellant's appeal was rejected.