任何「特別法」的適用，均有其適用範圍上的限制。法國1985年7月5日法律，該國現行損害賠償問題的主要法律依據，也是該國民事現任普通法的特別法。其適用範圍的界定，攸關該國交通事故損害賠償制度革的幅度與深度，因而成爲該國學說與實務上熱烈討論的議題。 本文從「陸上動力車輛」、「交通事故」、「損害賠償主體」等三個角度，研究觀察1985年7月5日法律的適用範圍，得出以下幾點主要結論： 第一，所謂「陸上動力的車輛」，與車輛「運輸功能」，密切相關。只要在事故發生時發揮「運輸功能」，不問該運輸功能係「繼續性」或「一時性」，也不問事故發生地點是在「公共場所」或「私人土地」，或是發生在「可供車輛通行與否的道路」上，亦不問該車輛是處在「發動狀態」或「停車狀態」，均是「陸上動力的車輛」。至於將「火車、電車等依固有軌道行駛的車輛」，排除在「陸上動力車輛」範圍之外，政策上是否妥當，是值得檢討的問題。 第二，所謂「交通事故」，不包括因「故意行爲」所引起的損害。法國財務將故意的行爲主體擴張及於「加害人」及「第三人」的故意，又將故意的程度包括「單純意識危險存在或損害可能發生」的情形，而且在交通事故同時又是「勞動災害事故」時，認爲勞動災害補償優先於交通事故損害賠償，使得被害人依1985年7月5日法律獲得特別保護的機會，相對縮小。此等見解是否妥當，也是值得檢討的問題。 第三，1985年7月5日法律所規範的交通事故「被害人」與「應負責任者」，範圍非常廣泛。「車輛駕駛人」，有可能是「應負責任者」，也可能是「被害人」。法國學說與實務將「駕駛人－應負責任者」的範圍，完全等同於「駕駛人－被害人」的範圍，並不妥當。無論如何，1985年7月5日法律的規範計畫，在於盡可能使各種「保險人」或交通事事「擔保基金」出面填補損害，並合理規範其彼此間的求償關係，同時盡可能使「被害人」或「應負責任者」退居幕後，免於損害賠償爭訟的困擾。此一立法政策，值得肯定。

The Loi n° 85-677 du 5 juillet 1985 (hereafter referred to as special law) is the main law regulating french traffic accident compensation problems. Besides, it is also the special law of the french general civil liability law. This article focus on the range of the special law, including three main parts: Vehicle, Traffic accident and Compensation parties. The definition of the so-called 'Vehicle' is greatly relative to its transportation function. As long as it can work successfully when accident happens, it is the vehicle what the law means. Regardless of the fact that it operates continuously or temporarily, that the accident site is in public, in private, or at the road open to vehicular traffic, that the car is in action or not moving, all of the above are the so-called 'Vehicle'. In addition, train, circulating on its own way, is excluded from the special law. As far as the policy is concerned, such exclusion is not without question. According to the definition of Traffic accident, the damage resulting from intentional behavior is not included. When the incident is both a traffic accident and a workplace accident, french courts consider that the conpensation law regulating the latter is prior to be applied. As a result, the chance that the victim can be protected under the special law is relatively decreasing. We need to examine the reasonableness of that opinion. The range of the victim and the responsible under the special law is extremely extensive The vehicle driver and possessor may be responsible for the damage but as they may suffer pain and loss, they are also victims protected under the special law.