[1] The duty of care in a case where a bicycle driver operating a bicycle lane intends to change course

[2] The case holding that in a case where a bicycle driver, who had done a left-hand turn on the right side of a road for the combined use of pedestrians and bicycles, was liable for damages by a preceding bicycle driver, who was driven by the preceding bicycle driver on the left side of the road at the above road, was immediately stopped to avoid collision and was injured

[1] In Article 19 (2) of the Road Traffic Act, "the driver of any motor vehicle shall not change course when it is likely to impede normal traffic of other motor vehicles running in the direction to which he/she intends to change his/her route," and Article 38 (1) of the Road Traffic Act provides that "the driver of any motor vehicle shall, when intending to change course while driving the motor vehicle in the same direction, give him/her a signal with hand, direction indicator or light until the act is completed, and the bicycle corresponds to "motor vehicle" under the Road Traffic Act. In light of the fact that a bicycle driver operating a bicycle lane intends to change course, he/she shall not change course when it is likely to impede normal traffic of other bicycles, and the driver has the duty of care to indicate the change of course by hand or an appropriate signal signal method when other bicycle driver drivess adjacent to the other bicycle driver.

[2] The case holding that in case where a bicycle driver, who had done a left turn on the right side of a road for the combined use of pedestrians and bicycles, was liable for damages of a preceding bicycle driver, who did not observe the duty of care to safely turn to the left by informing him of his driving direction through a hand signal, etc. or by looking at the distance near the driving direction and making him turn to the left without fulfilling the duty of care to safely turn to the left, in order to avoid a collision

[1] Article 2 subparag. 16 (a), Article 19 (2), and Article 38 (1) of the Road Traffic Act (amended by Act No. 9845 of Dec. 29, 2009) / [2] Article 2 subparag. 16 (a), Article 19 (2), and Article 38 (1) of the Road Traffic Act (amended by Act No. 9845 of Dec. 29, 2009); Article 750 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff

Defendant (Seoul Law Firm, Attorneys Yellow-hee et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2009Na23282 Decided November 3, 2009

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Article 19 (2) of the Road Traffic Act provides that "no driver of any motor vehicle shall change course when it is likely to impede normal traffic of other motor vehicles running in the direction to which he/she intends to change his/her route," and Article 38 (1) of the Road Traffic Act provides that "the driver of any motor vehicle shall, when intending to change course while driving in the same direction, use his/her hand, direction indicator or light until the completion of the act, and a bicycle corresponds to "motor vehicle" under the Road Traffic Act. In light of the fact that a bicycle driver operating a bicycle lane intends to change course, he/she shall not change course when it is likely to impede normal traffic of other bicycles, and the driver has a duty of care to indicate the change of course by hand or an appropriate signalling method when he/she drives another bicycle near the driver.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the following facts as follows: (i) the defendant was driving a bicycle on the right side of the road for the combined use of pedestrians and bicycles from the Yancheon to the diving; and (ii) the plaintiff was driving a part of the right side side of the defendant's right side behind the defendant, adjacent to the defendant, toward the defendant at an insular speed; (iii) the defendant was driving a road on the left side of the right side of the road; and (iv) the defendant was driving a road by turning the hand on his own left side in order to avoid a collision with the defendant bicycle; (iv) the plaintiff following the defendant stopped the road to avoid a collision with the defendant bicycle; and (v) the plaintiff was driving a bicycle to the right side of the road; and accordingly, (v) the plaintiff suffered injuries, such as cutting the runway.

Furthermore, the court below held that the defendant who sought to turn to the left in the above situation is liable to compensate the damages suffered by the plaintiff due to the accident in this case to the defendant who did not observe such duty of care, on the ground that he had a duty of care to safely turn to the left by informing the bicycle driver of his driving direction or by looking back his driving direction at the distance near the driving direction by hand signals, etc.

In light of the above legal principles and records, the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below are just and acceptable, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the bicycle driver's duty of care.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Min Il-young (Presiding Justice)