A Dog with a Loose Leash Attacked, Cyclist Swerved but Collided with Parked Truck, Breaking Finger... Who Is Responsible?

Changwon District Court Rules "100% Responsibility on Dog Owners and Illegal Parking Drivers" in Compensation Lawsuit

Korea Legal Aid Corporation Supports 'Jatan Nyo', Awards 60 Million Won Compensation

Changwon District Court.

[Asia Economy Yeongnam Reporting Headquarters Reporter Kim Yong-woo] A woman in her 50s who was riding a bicycle home was seriously injured after colliding with a truck illegally parked on the roadside while trying to avoid a fierce dog with a loose leash. Whose fault is it?

The court ruled that the dog owner and the owner of the illegally parked vehicle are 100% responsible.

According to the Korea Legal Aid Corporation on the 3rd, the Changwon District Court ruled in a damages claim lawsuit filed by Mr. A against the dog owner and others, ordering "the dog owner and the vehicle insurer to compensate Mr. A with 60 million won."

Mr. A was riding his bicycle home after finishing work in Gimhae-si, Gyeongnam, in April 2017, when he passed by a freight truck business operated by Mr. B and was attacked by Mr. B’s dog whose leash was loose.

The dog was a medium-sized mixed breed smaller than a large dog.

The dog barked fiercely and chased Mr. A, who, feeling fear, tried to avoid the dog but collided with the rear wheel of a truck illegally parked on the roadside and fell.

As a result of the accident, Mr. A suffered injuries requiring five weeks of treatment, including a broken finger, and sustained a permanent disability that prevents his finger from fully bending.

Mr. A demanded damages from the dog owner Mr. B and the insurer of the illegally parked vehicle but was refused.

Mr. A sought help from the Korea Legal Aid Corporation.

In the complaint, Mr. A demanded 32 million won in damages, but after a physical examination confirmed that the finger fracture was a permanent disability, the corporation increased the compensation to 60 million won.

The trial proceeded. Mr. B and the insurer argued that Mr. A was partly at fault for the accident due to insufficient caution while riding the bicycle, and thus the liability for damages should be limited.

The corporation argued that Mr. A was not at fault given the circumstances of the accident.

The Changwon District Court ruled entirely in favor of the plaintiff.

The court stated that “the fault lies with the dog owner who did not leash the dog and the vehicle owner who illegally parked,” siding with the corporation and Mr. A.

The court rejected the defendant’s claim that liability should be limited, noting that Mr. A was riding the bicycle normally until just before the accident and there was no evidence that he provoked the dog.

The dog owner repeatedly pointed out that Mr. A was not wearing a protective helmet, but the court ruled that there was no correlation between the lack of helmet and the injury sustained.

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