In a case where an accident of collision with a motor vehicle is occurred by neglecting the duty to take safety measures, such as moving the motor vehicle to a safe place immediately after the accident occurred on an expressway due to the driver who caused the primary accident, the case holding that there is a proximate causal relation between the illegal stopping and the secondary accident even though the driver who caused the primary accident did not actually have to take such safety measures as above, even though the driver who caused the primary accident did not have to take such measures at night.

In a case where a driver who caused the first accident on an expressway at night moves the vehicle to a safe place immediately after the accident occurred, or the driver of the vehicle who caused the first accident to a driving on an expressway at night, without neglecting his duty to take safety measures such as installing the “in the case of a garage, etc.” as provided in Article 61 of the former Road Traffic Act (wholly amended by Act No. 7545 of May 31, 2005) and Article 23 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act (wholly amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Government Administration and Home Affairs No. 329 of May 30, 2006), and thus making a stop on an expressway at night, the case holding that the said stopping constitutes an illegal stopping, and therefore, the driver of the vehicle who caused the first accident may have a collision with the above vehicle stopping on the expressway and may have a conflict with another vehicle or people around the expressway, so there was no time to take safety measures as long as there was no difference between the above illegal stopping and the second accident.

Article 750 of the Civil Act, Article 61 of the former Road Traffic Act (wholly amended by Act No. 7545 of May 31, 2005) (see current Article 66) and Article 23 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act (wholly amended by Act No. 329 of May 30, 2006) (see current Article 40)

Mo Maritime Fire Insurance Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Uinsu, Attorneys Kim Jong-Un et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Dong Fire & Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. and one other (Attorneys Kim Jong-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2008Na9988 decided July 23, 2009

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the facts based on the employment evidence, and determined that there was no proximate causal relationship between the non-party 1's violation of the duty to take safety measures and the secondary accident of this case, in light of the time interval between the first accident and the second accident of this case and the situation where the non-party 1 who caused the second accident was injured, and the first accident was stopped on the first and second lanes, but the first accident was stopped on the third lane but the non-party 2, the driver of the second vehicle driving on the second lane, who was a driver of the second vehicle driving on the second lane, was able to safely pass the accident area by changing the third lane. Thus, the second accident of this case was due to the former negligence of the non-party 2 who neglected to take safety measures at the second accident of this case and the second accident of this case.

However, such determination by the court below is difficult to accept for the following reasons.

According to Article 61 of the former Road Traffic Act (wholly amended by Act No. 7545 of May 31, 2005 and enforced June 1, 2006; hereinafter the same shall apply) and Article 23 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act (wholly amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Government Administration and Home Affairs No. 329 of May 30, 2006; hereinafter the same shall apply), when the driver of a motor vehicle is unable to drive his/her motor vehicle on an expressway or motorway due to breakdown or other reasons, he/she shall install a sign "in cases of a expressway, etc." as prescribed by the former Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act on the side after more than 10 meters from the motor vehicle and, in particular, at night, on the road after not less than 200 meters away from the motor vehicle, and take necessary measures, such as moving the motor vehicle to the expressway or motorway, etc.

Examining the facts acknowledged by the court below in light of the above provisions, the non-party 1, an acting driver, has installed a steering gear during the operation of the expressway at night, driving the vehicle along the two-lanes, leading to collision between the cargo vehicles of the non-party 3 driver and the non-party 4 driver in order to stop on the first and second lanes. The non-party 1 neglected the duty to take safety measures such as moving the above vehicle to a safe place immediately after the accident, or installing the "in the case of a stop, etc." as provided in Article 61 of the former Road Act and Article 23 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act, so this type of stop of the non-party 1 is deemed to constitute an illegal stop. Accordingly, the non-party 1 may sufficiently expect that the vehicle after driving the expressway at night may conflict with the above vehicle stopped on the first and second lanes, and that there is no sufficient causal relation between the non-party 1 and the non-party 2, even if there was no other vehicle or person around the expressway.

Nevertheless, the court below determined that there is no proximate causal relation between the illegal stopping of Nonparty 1 and the second accident of this case, and that the occurrence of the second accident was solely caused by the whole negligence of Nonparty 2, who is the driver of the next vehicle, and thereby, erred by misapprehending the legal principles on proximate causal relation, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The part of the ground of appeal assigning this error is with merit.

Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Hong-hoon (Presiding Justice)