Supreme Court: Buses Without Wheelchair-Only Spaces Discriminate Against Disabled People

[Asia Economy Reporter Baek Kyunghwan] The Supreme Court ruled that a bus company must provide a dedicated wheelchair space after a person with a physical disability filed a lawsuit claiming discrimination for having to travel facing sideways due to the absence of a wheelchair-only section on the bus. However, the court decided that the part of the lower court’s ruling recognizing compensation for emotional distress should be overturned.

On the 1st, the Supreme Court’s First Division (Presiding Justice Lee Gitaek) overturned the lower court’s partial ruling in favor of the plaintiff in the appeal trial of a damages claim filed by wheelchair user Kim against bus company A, and sent the case back to the Seoul High Court.

In December 2015, Kim boarded a two-story intercity bus operated by company A in Gyeonggi Province via a manually operated ramp installed on the bus. However, the bus did not have a dedicated space for wheelchair users measuring at least 1.3 meters in length and 0.75 meters in width as stipulated by the Enforcement Regulations of the Act on the Transportation Convenience for Mobility Disadvantaged Persons. Kim boarded through the rear door but was unable to change direction and had to ride facing sideways, unlike other passengers who faced forward.

Kim filed a lawsuit demanding 3 million won in damages for mental suffering and that the bus company secure a dedicated space, claiming that company A had engaged in discriminatory acts prohibited by the Act on the Prohibition of Discrimination Against Persons with Disabilities.

The first trial dismissed Kim’s claim, stating that the bus was not a low-floor bus and therefore was not obligated to secure a dedicated space under the Enforcement Regulations of the Act on the Transportation Convenience for Mobility Disadvantaged Persons.

However, the second trial court ruled that the bus, equipped with a manual ramp for wheelchair boarding, had a legal obligation to secure a dedicated space regardless of whether it was a low-floor bus. The court also rejected company A’s argument that the bus already met the dedicated space standards because the length specified in the Enforcement Regulations does not necessarily have to be parallel to the bus’s longitudinal direction.

The Supreme Court agreed with this judgment. The court stated, “Transportation operators have an obligation to install seats for the mobility disadvantaged to provide reasonable convenience for disabled passengers,” and “Based on this, they are obligated to provide seats for the mobility disadvantaged measuring at least 1.3 meters in the direction of bus travel and 0.75 meters in the direction of the entrance door.”

However, the Supreme Court overturned the part of the lower court’s ruling that granted Kim’s claim for emotional damages. The court explained that there is sufficient reason to believe that the bus company did not act with intent or negligence in violating the obligation to provide reasonable convenience.

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.