Bus Wheelchair Space Facing Away... "It's Disability Discrimination"

Supreme Court: "There Is an Obligation to Provide Seats for Transportation-Disadvantaged Persons"... Compensation Recognition Part Remanded

[Asia Economy Reporter Baek Kyunghwan] Unlike other seats on the bus, a wheelchair-only space is designed to face only the side. The Supreme Court ruled that the bus seat structure, which requires wheelchair users to face the side rather than forward like other passengers, constitutes discrimination. This is the Supreme Court's first ruling on an affirmative action case under the Act on the Prohibition of Discrimination against Disabled Persons.

Recently, the Supreme Court overturned the appellate court's partial ruling in favor of wheelchair user Kim in a damages claim lawsuit against bus company A and remanded the case 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, this bus did not have a dedicated space for wheelchair users measuring at least 1.3m in length and 0.75m in width as stipulated by the Enforcement Rules of the Act on the Transportation Vulnerable. Kim boarded through the rear door but was unable to change direction and had to use the bus facing sideways, unlike other passengers who faced forward.

Kim filed a lawsuit claiming that company A committed discriminatory acts prohibited by the Act on the Prohibition of Discrimination against Disabled Persons, demanding 3 million KRW in damages for mental distress and the establishment of a dedicated space on the bus.

The first trial court dismissed Kim's claim, stating that the bus was not a low-floor bus and therefore there was no obligation to secure a dedicated space under the Enforcement Rules of the Act on the Transportation Vulnerable. The court ruled, "Since the bus is not a low-floor bus, there is no obligation to secure a dedicated space for wheelchair users, and the defendant, as a transportation operator, did not intentionally or negligently refuse to provide reasonable accommodation to the disabled plaintiff Kim, so no discriminatory act can be recognized," resulting in a ruling against the plaintiff.

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 claim that "the length stipulated in the Enforcement Rules of the Act on the Transportation Vulnerable does not necessarily have to be parallel to the long side of the bus, so the bus already meets the dedicated space standards."

The Supreme Court agreed with this judgment. The court stated, "Transportation operators have an obligation to install seats for the transportation vulnerable to provide reasonable accommodation for disabled persons on buses," and "Based on this, there is an obligation to provide seats for the transportation vulnerable measuring at least 1.3m in the direction of bus travel and 0.75m in the direction of the entrance."

However, the Supreme Court ruled that the part of the lower court's judgment recognizing compensation for emotional damages should be overturned. The Supreme Court explained, "Considering that the Enforcement Rules of the Act on the Transportation Vulnerable do not clearly specify how to measure the length and width of seats for the transportation vulnerable, and that the defendant purchased the bus under a business agreement with the local government, which did not point out that the dedicated space for wheelchair users fell short of the size standards, there is sufficient reason to believe that the defendant did not act with intent or negligence in violating the obligation to provide reasonable accommodation," and thus overturned the part recognizing the claim for emotional damages.

A Supreme Court official explained, "This ruling is the Supreme Court's first case to review and decide on an affirmative action and damages claim case under the Act on the Prohibition of Discrimination against Disabled Persons, which was enacted on April 10, 2007, and enforced from April 11, 2008."

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