Supreme Court: "Hitting a Pedestrian After Crossing the Center Line Constitutes a 'Center Line Violation Accident'"...Case Remanded

Cargo Truck Driver Makes Illegal Left Turn, Hits Woman in Her 70s
Appellate Court: "Center Line Violation Not a Direct Cause"
Supreme Court: "Pedestrians Also Protected by Trust That Vehicles Will Not Cross Center Line" – Lower Court Ruling Overturned

The Supreme Court has ruled that if a driver makes an illegal left turn by crossing the center line and hits a pedestrian crossing from the opposite side, the incident constitutes a "center line violation accident" subject to criminal punishment, regardless of whether the driver has comprehensive auto insurance. The rationale is that the regulation prohibiting center line violations exists not only to protect oncoming vehicles but also to ensure the safety of pedestrians.

The court flag is fluttering at the Supreme Court in Seocho-gu, Seoul. Photo by Yonhap News Agency

According to the legal community on June 21, the Supreme Court (with Justice Cheon Dae-yeop presiding) recently overturned the lower court's decision to dismiss the indictment against cargo truck driver Kang, who had been prosecuted for violating the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents (resulting in injury), and remanded the case to the Daejeon District Court.

On June 27, 2023, Kang attempted an illegal left turn in Sejong City by crossing a solid yellow center line, which prohibits left turns, while driving a cargo truck. During this maneuver, the truck struck a 78-year-old woman who was crossing between the opposite road and a side street, hitting her with the vehicle's bumper. The victim suffered serious injuries, including multiple rib fractures, requiring 28 weeks of medical treatment.

The key issue in the trial was whether this accident could be classified as a "center line violation accident," one of the 12 major faults under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents. Even if the at-fault vehicle is covered by comprehensive insurance, drivers involved in one of the 12 major faults cannot avoid criminal liability.

The first trial found Kang at fault and sentenced him to 10 months in prison, suspended for two years. However, the appellate court determined that there was insufficient evidence to conclude that Kang's center line violation was the "direct cause" of the pedestrian accident. As a result, the appellate court overturned the first verdict and dismissed the indictment, citing Kang's coverage by comprehensive insurance.

However, the Supreme Court found the appellate court's decision to be incorrect. The Supreme Court panel stated, "The purpose of the center line violation accident regulation is to protect the trust of drivers and other traffic participants that vehicles in motion will not cross the center line," and added, "Pedestrians who walk with the expectation that vehicles will not suddenly cross the center line and rush toward them are also protected by this provision."

The court continued, "The victim walked with the expectation that a vehicle would not suddenly cross the center line and enter the side street, and there were no abnormal circumstances in the victim's manner of crossing. Therefore, the defendant's act of crossing the center line can be considered the direct cause of this traffic accident," and remanded the case for further proceedings.

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.