Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The main point of the grounds for appeal that the injured party suffered does not constitute the injury caused by occupational negligence.
Since the occurrence of an accident was not known, there was no intention to escape without taking relief measures.
2. The car driven by the Defendant shocked the part of the victim F’s left side buckbucks with the front part of the right part.
The victim was tightly pushed about about one meter after the shock.
The victim stated that the victim "I am to the bridge immediately after the accident" is a fresh. The victim stated at the convenience store that "I am to the fresh when I am to the frecinite and I am to the crosswalk."
The victim's statement does not seem to have neglected the degree of damage.
The victim was hospitalized at H Hospital on March 25, 2018 to March 31, 2018 with knee, knee, knee, and knee-free knee.
There is no ground to see that the treatment of the H hospital was excessive.
The injured party's wife is the injury of occupational injury, and the traffic accident analysis report submitted by the defendant is not affected by the above judgment.
At the time of the accident, the victim was pushed ahead of one meter due to the conflict with the car, and the male who observed the accident site was asked to "whether or not the parent telephone number is available at the time of the traffic accident" to the victim.
Even if the defendant was at any time and the victim did not go out after shock, the driver could sufficiently recognize that the driver was shocked with the car and the victim.
In addition, if the victim is a child of eight years of age, the victim should have taken necessary measures by checking the occurrence of the accident caused by the driver's car, the situation of the victim, etc.
In recognition of the occurrence of an accident, the defendant is recognized to have escaped from the scene without a relief measure.
The defendant is negligent in the course of business.