[교통사고처리특례법위반][집33(3)형,561;공1985.11.1.(763),1361]
Degree of the duty of care of the vehicle driver driving on a roadway with a road;
Even if a driver of a vehicle driving on the side of a road where the king of various vehicles is boomed and the passage of pedestrians is prohibited, it is generally difficult for a bridge to anticipate that the bridge is the original road because the bridger, in particular, can not see that the booms on the front side, even if he/she finds a victim on the front side of the road, unless he/she seems to have chilled to the vehicular road. In such cases, it is sufficient for ordinary pedestrians to operate the vehicle by reliance on the passage of the road without crossing the vehicular road in compliance with the traffic-related laws and regulations, and there is no duty of care to take measures to prevent it in advance by predicting the pedestrian who is up to it.
Article 3 of the Act on Special Cases concerning Traffic Accident Settlement
Defendant
Defendant
Busan District Court Decision 84No380 delivered on June 7, 1984
The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Busan District Court Panel Division.
The defendant's grounds of appeal are examined.
The judgment of the court of first instance, based on its macroficial evidence, is a person engaged in the urban bus driving service of Busan five meters and operated the above vehicle at around 12:03 on September 14, 1983, and operated the second line at a speed of about 40km in speed from the same Gu and about 40km from the same Gu-gu, Busan, and operated the second line at the same speed of about 20km. At this point, the person engaged in driving service was 10 meters prior to the right side of the road where the victim is blick-dong (31 years old). In such a case, the person engaged in driving service was able to take measures to avoid the accident while driving the vehicle in front of the defendant's career, and had the victim continue to drive the vehicle at the speed of 1:5 meters prior to the death of the victim without being able to do so by plucking it at the right side of the defendant, but the court below found the fact that the victim continued to run the vehicle at the speed of 20 meters prior to the defendant's.
However, in this case, if the court below found that there were no errors by misapprehending the legal principles of the victim's duty of care on the front side of the road, or by failing to take any such measures on the front side of the road at a stop where about 20 meters passed prior to the scene of the accident, it is hard to see that the victim was at a speed of about 5 meters through 40 meters prior to the stop of the vehicle at a speed of 10 meters prior to the front side of the road (the second line is wider than that of the bus), and even if the victim was at a speed of about 10 meters prior to the stop of the vehicle, it is hard to see that the victim was at a speed of 10 meters prior to the stop of the vehicle at a speed of 10 meters prior to the front side of the road, and that the victim was at a speed of 5 to 6 meters prior to the above stop of the vehicle, and that there was no other unavoidable reason to view that the accident occurred prior to the stop of the vehicle to the front side of the road.
Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to Busan District Court Panel Division. It is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all Justices who reviewed the appeal.
Justices Jeong Jong-tae (Presiding Justice)