Supreme Court: Driver Must Compensate Passenger Who Fell as Bus Stopped

The photo is unrelated to the article content.

[Asia Economy Reporter Kim Daehyun] The Supreme Court has ruled that if a passenger standing on a bus that is stopped falls and gets injured without intentionally falling, the bus driver is liable.

On the 22nd, the Supreme Court's 2nd Division (Presiding Justice Lee Dongwon) announced that it overturned the lower court's ruling, which had dismissed the claim, in the appeal case filed by the National Health Insurance Service against bus company A and others, and remanded the case to the Busan District Court.

Previously, passenger B stood up to get off a city bus in Busan in 2017 and fell backward during the stopping process, sustaining injuries requiring two weeks of medical treatment. The National Health Insurance Service paid part of the related medical expenses and then filed a subrogation claim lawsuit against the company to which the bus driver belonged and the bus transportation association.

The first and second trials ruled against the plaintiff. While acknowledging that B was injured during the bus operation, they judged that the accident was entirely due to B's negligence, not the bus driver’s. The first trial court stated, "The victim stood up from their seat before the bus stopped and tried to put on a backpack on their shoulder in a posture prone to falling without holding the handrail," and added, "There is no evidence that the bus made a sudden stop, so no fault can be attributed to the driver."

However, the Supreme Court ordered a retrial and reconsideration of the case. The court stated, "The Automobile Damage Compensation Act provides greater protection by distinguishing cases where passengers die or are injured from those involving drivers or other persons," and "Unless the operator proves that the passenger’s injury was intentional or a suicide attempt, the operator must compensate for damages resulting from the passenger’s injury regardless of whether there was negligence in driving."

The court added, "It is insufficient to conclude that the accident was caused intentionally by the passenger victim, and the defendants cannot be exempted from liability for the injury and damages," and "The lower court misinterpreted the legal principles related to Article 3, Clause 2 of the Automobile Damage Compensation Act, which affected the judgment."

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