Liability of a carrier for damages in the event of injury to a passenger due to the windows of a train or by a passenger;

If a passenger is injured due to the gap of windows caused by the operation of a train, and the passenger is not caused by a third party's shooting, etc., but the glass angle does not result in the third party's shooting, etc., and if the passenger is ordinarily going through due to the passage of a train, it shall be limited to matters within the scope of the duty of care to ensure the safety of passengers by taking appropriate measures, and thus, unless it is proved that the transportation business operator or his/her employee did not neglect due care concerning the above transportation, the transportation business operator shall be liable for compensation for such damage.

Article 148 of the Commercial Act

Supreme Court Decision 69Da832 Decided July 29, 1969

Plaintiff 1 and two others are minors, and they are attorneys Kim Jae-ok, Counsel for the legal representative Kim Jae-ok

The legal representative of the Republic of Korea shall be the Minister of Justice of the Ministry of Justice of Kimchi-hele lele, flatable, and stuff

Seoul High Court Decision 78Na3432 delivered on February 21, 1979

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The grounds of appeal by Defendant 1’s performer are examined.

With respect to Section 1:

The provisions of Article 148 of the Commercial Act concerning the liability of passengers to compensate for damages are as follows: (a) the carrier cannot avoid liability unless it proves that the damage was caused by the carriage by the passengers during the carriage and the damage was caused by the matters belonging to the scope of the obligation of care concerning the carriage by the carrier or his employees; and (b) the same shall apply to the theory that the damages caused by the passengers during the carriage are not caused to the carrier and is not responsible for the carrier; (c) however, according to the established facts of the judgment of the court below, it is reasonable to view that the damage was caused by the above act of the carrier due to the lack of due care to the difference of the glass windows located at approximately 20 cent in the train and the loss caused by the transportation of the passengers to the right-hand side of the plaintiff 1, who was on board the train, and that it is reasonable to view that the above act of the carrier was not accompanied by the above act of the plaintiff 1's failure of care concerning the transportation of the passengers due to the operation of the train, and that the above act of the defendant 1 was not accompanied by the above act of free will be justified.

With respect to Section 2:

According to the records, it cannot be deemed that there was any error in the rules of evidence in the process of the selection of evidence which was conducted by the court below for the recognition of facts in the judgment, and there is no evidence to regard this case's glass view out of the outside, as seen above, and instead, it is nothing more than an incomplete hearing on the ground that there was no error in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence in the process of the selection of evidence which was conducted by the court below, and there was no evidence to regard this case's glass view out of the open window ordinarily accompanied by train operation.

Therefore, the Defendant’s instant appeal is without merit, and thus, it is dismissed in accordance with the provisions of Articles 400, 395, and 384(1) of the Civil Procedure Act. The Defendant’s instant appeal is subject to Articles 95 and 89 of the same Act with respect to the burden of litigation costs, and is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Hah-hak (Presiding Justice)