The duty of care of the driver who passes through the intersection in accordance with the straight-line signal, and in such case whether there is a proximate causal relation between the driver's excessive act and the traffic accident (negative with qualification)

The driver of a vehicle driving across the eight-way main road following green light shall be sufficient to believe that the driver does not attempt to make a left-hand turn without permission by complying with traffic regulations even other vehicles coming from the two-way connection road, barring any special circumstances. They do not have a duty of care to take special measures in order to prevent any accident in advance by predicting the left-hand turn at which the vehicle driving along the connection road is not allowed even if the vehicle going to the right-hand turn at the access road and going to the right-hand turn at the right-hand turn. In addition, even if the driver finds that the driver could avoid a collision after finding that the victim would turn to the left-hand turn and enter the road, barring any special circumstances such as the driver could avoid a collision, even if the driver was negligent in driving over the speed limit, it cannot be deemed that there is a proximate causal relationship between such error and the occurrence of the traffic accident.

Article 3(1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning Traffic Accident Settlement

Supreme Court Decision 84Do1493 delivered on January 22, 1985 (Gong1985, 386), Supreme Court Decision 89Do1774 delivered on February 9, 1990 (Gong1990, 697), Supreme Court Decision 92Do2579 delivered on January 15, 1993 (Gong1993, 777), Supreme Court Decision 94Do995 delivered on June 28, 1994 (Gong1994Ha, 2151), Supreme Court Decision 98Da14252, 14269 delivered on June 12, 198 (Gong198Ha, 186)

Defendant

Prosecutor

Incheon District Court Decision 97No1372 delivered on May 21, 1998

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

원심이 인정한 사실과 기록에 의하면, 이 사건 사고 장소는 선학사거리와 청학동을 잇는 폭 28m의 왕복 8차선 도로(이하 이 사건 8차선 도로라고 한다)와 연수주택 4단지 쪽에서 나오는 폭 10m의 왕복 2차선 도로(이하 이 사건 접속도로라고 한다)가 만나는 'ㅏ'자형 삼거리 교차로이고, 피고인은 이 사건 사고 당시 이 사건 택시를 운전하여 이 사건 8차선 도로의 2차로를 따라 선학사거리 방면에서 청학동 방면으로 진행하던 중 직진신호에 따라 이 사건 교차로를 통과하게 되었는데, 피해자 피해자 운전의 이 사건 승용차가 피고인 진행 방향 오른쪽의 이 사건 접속도로에서 갑자기 피고인 운전의 이 사건 택시 앞을 가로질러 좌회전하려고 하였으며, 피고인은 피해자 운전의 이 사건 승용차를 약 5m 전방에서 발견하고 이를 피하려 하였으나 피하지 못하고 피해자 운전의 이 사건 승용차를 충돌하는 이 사건 사고에 이르게 되었고, 이 사건 교차로는 피해자의 진행 방향에서 보면 신호등이 설치되어 있지 아니하고, 피고인 진행차선에는 황색 실선의 중앙선과 횡단보도가 설치되어 있어서 이 사건 접속도로로부터 이 사건 8차선 도로에 진입하기 위한 좌회전이 허용되지 아니하고, 이 사건 8차선 도로로부터 이 사건 접속도로에 진입하기 위한 좌회전도 허용되지 아니하는 교차로이다. 이 사건 교차로에 설치된 신호등은 이 사건 접속도로로부터 좌회전하여 이 사건 8차선 도로로 진입하는 차량을 위하여 이 사건 8차선 도로에 진행하는 차량들을 정지시키거나 반대로 이 사건 8차선 도로로부터 좌회전하여 이 사건 접속도로로 진입하는 차량을 위하여 이 사건 8차선 도로에서 피고인 진행 방향으로 진행하는 차량들을 정지시키기 위하여 설치된 것이 아니라, 보행자가 이 사건 8차선 도로에 설치된 횡단보도를 횡단하는 동안 이 사건 8차선 도로에서 진행하는 차량들을 정지시키기 위하여 설치된 것으로 보인다.

Under such road conditions, the driver of a vehicle driving across the eight-way main road along with the Defendant’s green light as well as the driver of a vehicle driving across the eight-way main road, barring any special circumstance, is sufficient to believe that the other vehicles going along the connection road will not attempt to comply with traffic regulations and make a left-hand turn without permission, and there is no duty of care to take special measures to prevent the occurrence of the accident in advance (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 9Da14252, Jun. 12, 1998; 94Do995, Jun. 28, 1994; 92Do2579, Jan. 15, 1993; 200Do4978, Apr. 18, 1997).

In this case, the court below held that even though the defendant proceeded at a speed of about 110 km (70 km speed), even if the defendant observed the speed limit, there was no proximate causal relation between such mistake and the occurrence of the traffic accident in this case. First of all, traffic accident analysis opinion prepared by the post office of Incheon Metropolitan City Road Traffic Safety Association, which was the basis of the presumption of the above speed, is premised on the defendant's vehicle and the victim's vehicle's vehicle are integrated after collision, and the second collision between the defendant's vehicle and the end-of-life driver's vehicle after the first collision, whether the vehicle of the defendant's vehicle and the end-of-life driver's vehicle are in conflict with each other, and it is difficult to conclude that the above premise of the traffic accident analysis cannot be concluded that all of the above conditions of the traffic accident analysis were met, and it cannot be concluded that there was no error in the conclusion of the judgment of the court below as above between the defendant's vehicle and the end-of-life driver's vehicle of this case.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)