[1] A driver's duty of care to operate a motorway

[2] The case holding that there is no proximate causal relation between the mistake and the occurrence of an accident, in case where the driver of the following motor vehicle failed to secure the safety distance from the motor vehicle in front of it, even though it was erroneous for the driver of the following motor vehicle to obtain the safety distance from the motor vehicle

[1] Article 750 of the Civil Act, Article 63 of the Road Traffic Act / [2] Article 750 of the Civil Act, Articles 19 (1) and 63 of the Road Traffic Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 96Da22525 delivered on October 15, 1996 (Gong1996Ha, 3390) Supreme Court Decision 98Da5135 delivered on April 28, 1998 (Gong1998Sang, 1496)

Plaintiff 1 and three others

[Defendant-Appellee] Insurance Co., Ltd. (Attorney Jeon Chang-chul, Counsel for defendant-appellee)

Daegu High Court Decision 2006Na7236 Decided March 28, 2007

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Article 63 of the Road Traffic Act provides that pedestrians shall not pass through or cross a motorway. Thus, a driver of a motor vehicle operating a motorway has no duty of care to drive the motor vehicle while preparing for a pedestrian to stop the motorway, in the absence of special circumstances. Therefore, even in cases where a victim who drives a motorway without permission causes an accident due to shocking the victim, there was a circumstance in which the driver could anticipate such unauthorized crossing in advance at a considerable distance. If the driver was to immediately reduce or immediately drive the motorway, barring special circumstances such as the occurrence of a collision with the victim, it cannot be deemed that there was a negligence on the motor vehicle driver (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 96Da22525, Oct. 15, 196; 98Da5135, Apr. 28, 1998).

According to the evidence duly admitted by the court below, it is a motorway of the 80km/h where the two-lane 1, which is the point of the accident in this case, was located at the new speed. It is installed at the above intersection between the two-lanes of the defendant's insurable vehicle, and there is a retaining wall on the right side of the four-lanes. At the point of the accident in this case, the above retaining wall is considerably high and the above trees are left down. The victim's non-party 1 was not responsible for the collision between the two-lanes of this case and the two-lanes of this case without permission. Thus, it is difficult to find the two-lanes of the two-lanes of the motor vehicle without permission that the victim could not be found to have done the accident without permission until the accident occurred, because the non-party 2, who was the driver of the passenger-lane 2, who was the driver of the motor vehicle in this case, was installed on the two-lanes of the two-lanes of this case and the two-lanes of this case.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that recognized the liability for the result of the accident of this case to Nonparty 2 on the ground that there was a proximate causal relationship between the negligence operated by Nonparty 2 without securing the safety distance from the vehicle in front at the time of the accident of this case and the result of the accident of this case, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by misapprehending the legal principles on the duty of care of the driver on the motorway, or on the proximate causal relationship

Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Nung-hwan (Presiding Justice)