An intersection with a signal signal, etc. is overspeed pursuant to the signals, but there is negligence of the vehicle driver (negative)

Unless there are special circumstances, the driver of a vehicle driving a private-distance intersection where traffic is controlled by signal, etc. according to green light shall be sufficient to observe traffic regulations and take appropriate measures to avoid collision, and there is no duty of care to take special measures to prevent the occurrence of the accident by predicting that other vehicles are in front of a vehicle driving in violation of the signal, and to prevent the occurrence of the accident accordingly. Thus, even if the defendant exceeded the restricted speed at the time of passing through the private-distance intersection by green light, the driver of the vehicle driving the private-distance intersection from the left side of the road to the private-distance intersection without disregarding the signal is not liable for the death of occupational negligence on the part of the victim.

Article 3 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, Article 268 of the Criminal Act

Supreme Court Decision 84Do1493 Delivered on January 22, 1985

Defendant

Prosecutor

Daegu District Court Decision 88No552 delivered on December 9, 1988

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Unless there are special circumstances, the driver of a vehicle who is under traffic control by green lighting along the private-distance intersection where traffic is controlled by signal, etc. shall be sufficient when other vehicles are believed to observe traffic regulations and take appropriate measures to avoid collision. The driver of a vehicle who is under traffic control shall also have no duty of care to take special measures to prevent the occurrence of the accident (see Supreme Court Decision 84Do1493, Jan. 22, 1985). The defendant who is under the green signal as at the time of the original trial and was under the victim's driving does not have a duty of care to ensure that the victim's driver would directly operate the traffic signal and expect to do so until it comes straight, and even if the defendant exceeded the speed of the accident by passing through the point of the accident in this case, even if the defendant did not have a duty of care to compensate for the death or injury caused by occupational negligence, and there is no illegality in the misapprehension of law.

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

Justices Park Yong-dong (Presiding Justice)