有没有朋友能帮忙用英文写一篇申诉，内容随便。还要有其汉语翻译。谢谢啦！！！
參考答案:事故经过： 小明骑乘机车遭肇事逃逸车辆擦撞后，送医急救在此次车祸中失去双脚， 因车祸当时并未请警察至现场处理，数周后小明回到车祸现场发现现场已遭破坏， 无法发现任何肇事痕迹或目击证人，为方便申请强制汽车责任保险金，小明到派出所备案， 请警方开具交通事故证明书，证明书上记载：「据报案人称遭不明车辆撞击…… 。」小明向其所投保的产物保险公司申请强制汽车责任保险残废保险金， 保险公司以该事故属于单一汽车交通事故为由拒绝理赔，问保险公司是否有理？ 案例分析： 依强制汽车责任保险法施行细则第三条第二项规定： 「汽车交通事故仅涉及一辆汽车者，受害人不包括该汽车之驾驶人」。 也就是说，若交通事故只涉及一辆汽车，不论是自己驾车或是因为闪避他车， 其中并无车辆碰撞而去撞击路树、安全岛…等，驾驶人均无法申请强制汽车责任保险金。 本例究竟属于单一汽车事故或涉及其他车辆的事故，为事实认定问题， 故应先厘清事实举证责任归属问题。 按主张有利于己的事实者，应就其事实负举证的责任。 小明既主张系遭他车撞击所产生的事故，且该肇事车辆逃逸， 应符合强制汽车责任保险法第三十八条第一项第一款「肇事汽车无法查究」的事实予以证明 ，亦即对于本件事故的确因他车撞击所致，且肇事车辆已逃逸无法追查的事实提出证明。 本例中，小明未于案发时请警察至现场处理， 事后亦无法提供明确的交通事故证明书证明系遭他车撞击。 保险公司只能依现场道路状况、地上拖痕、机车撞击痕迹或目击证人来判断是否遭他车撞击。 本例中肇事现场已遭破坏且并未留有任何车祸痕迹， 故保险公司亦无法判断小明是否确实遭他车撞击。 因此，除非小明能提出其他证据证明的确遭受他车撞击， 否则应认为未尽形式上举证责任的要求，保险公司得以单一汽车事故为理由拒绝赔偿。 小明虽提出警方开立的交通事故证明书，仅依据小明一人的陈述， 目的在证明「事故发生」的事实，尚无法作为认定「事故发生原因」的唯一根据。 本例中警方开具的交通事故证明书记载：「据报案人称遭不明车辆撞击…… ..」足见警方对事故发生的原因仍未予肯定证明，故除非小明另能提出进一步的证据， 证明其陈述属实，否则难以认定。 依目前所有的证据资料显示，初步认定为单一汽车事故，故保险公司不负理赔责任。 若小明能再提出其他证据，证明的确遭到他汽车撞击， 自符合强制汽车责任保险法第三十八条第一项第一款「肇事汽车无法查究」， 系属汽车交通事故特别补偿基金的补偿案件，小明可以向该基金申请补偿。
Saddle : Siu Ming locomotive after the accident was a collision between vehicles fled after the accident, rushed to the hospital, lost both legs in this crash. Police were not invited to a traffic accident scene, a few weeks after returning Xiao-Ming was found at the scene of the accident scene has been damaged. unable to detect any traces of or witnesses to the incident, in order to facilitate the application for a compulsory automobile liability insurance, to the police station to record appearance, Please traffic police issued certificates, says : "According to the source was unknown vehicle collision…… . "Xiaoming reimburse insurance companies for the product of the compulsory automobile liability insurance, disability insurance, belong to a single vehicle traffic accident to the insurance company refused settlement, the insurance company asked whether justified? Case Study : compulsory automobile liability insurance, according to details of the third of the second law : "The car accident involving a vehicle only, and does not include victims of the motor vehicle drivers." In other words, if only accident involving a car and drive their own cars or whether it is able to get away because his car There is no impact knocking away trees, and the refuge…, driving the per capita payments are not eligible for compulsory automobile liability insurance. In this case what is involved in a single car accident or traffic accidents, confirming the fact, Therefore, the burden of proof should first clarify the fact that the issue of responsibility. Advocate a more favorable by the fact that, should bear the onus of proof on the basis of facts. Xiao-Ming car crash he was between advocates of the accident, where the vehicle fled. Compulsory Motor Vehicle Liability Insurance Act shall be subject to Article 38, paragraph 1, 1, "caused by car-fixing" the facts to prove , which is true for the incidents caused by his car collision, and the vehicle has been unable to trace the escape proof of facts. In this case, the appearance did not ask for the police to the scene at the time of the incident. After the accident would not be available certification system was clear his car collision. Insurance companies can live according to the road conditions, which dragged the race and impact marks or witnesses to determine whether the locomotive was his car collision. The cases were the scene of the accident has been damaged and did not have any traces of the accident, Therefore, the insurance company, he was unable to judge whether there is a car collision appearance. Therefore, unless Xiaoming being able to produce other evidence to prove that he is indeed car collision Otherwise, the burden of proof should be considered not entirely formal request, the insurance company refused to pay compensation to a single reason for a car accident. Xiao-Ming opened in the capital, although police put certificate based only on the appearance of a statement aim to prove that the "accident" of the facts, not yet identified as "the cause of the accident," the only basis. Certificates issued by the traffic police of the cases, says : "According to the source was unknown vehicle collision…… .. "The cause of the incident shows the police has not been definitely proved, it can be another appearance unless further evidence prove that the statement is true, I do not identified. Looking at all the evidence, initially characterized as a single car accident, the insurance company irresponsible claims responsibility. Xiao-Ming longer if other evidence to prove that he was indeed car collision Since compulsory automobile liability insurance law in line with Article 38, paragraph 1, 1, "unable to fixing auto accident." Automobile traffic is classified as special compensation fund for the compensation cases, Xiao-Ming be able to apply to the Fund for compensation.
