Supreme Court: Bus 'Wheelchair Boarding Equipment' Order... Court Exceeded Discretion

1st and 2nd Trials: "Wheelchair Lifts and Boarding Convenience Must Be Provided Immediately on Buses"
Supreme Court: "Obligation to Provide Boarding Facilities... 'Immediate on All Buses' Violates Proportionality Principle"

[Asia Economy Reporter Heo Kyung-jun] The Supreme Court has ruled that the court order to introduce low-floor buses on city and intercity routes and to install wheelchair boarding facilities exceeded the court's discretionary limits.

While it is clear that bus companies have an obligation to provide wheelchair boarding facilities, the order should require the provision of such facilities only on specific routes where there is a concrete and probable likelihood that people with physical disabilities will board, taking into account the financial status of the bus companies, rather than mandating it for "all buses."

The Supreme Court's First Division (Presiding Justice No Tae-ak) overturned the lower court's ruling, which partially ruled in favor of plaintiffs A and others who claimed their right to mobility was infringed due to the lack of wheelchair boarding equipment or low-floor buses on intercity buses, and ordered the case to be retried at the Seoul High Court. The defendants included the government, Seoul City, Gyeonggi Province, Kumho Express, and Myeongseong Transportation.

A and others, who have physical disabilities such as mobility impairments and brain lesions, filed the lawsuit in 2014, arguing that despite the need for remedial measures such as the introduction of low-floor buses to guarantee mobility rights under the Act on the Transportation Convenience of Mobility Disadvantaged Persons and the Act on the Prohibition of Discrimination against Persons with Disabilities, Kumho Express and Myeongseong Transportation had not taken any action.

At that time, low-floor buses were introduced in only 16.4% of city buses nationwide, and none had been introduced on intercity buses. Additionally, there were no city or intercity buses equipped with wheelchair boarding facilities anywhere in the country.

Accordingly, A and others demanded that Kumho Express and Myeongseong Transportation introduce low-floor buses and install wheelchair boarding facilities, and requested that the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, the Mayor of Seoul, and the Governor of Gyeonggi Province include the introduction of low-floor buses in their respective "Plans to Improve Transportation Convenience for the Mobility Disadvantaged" and promote policies to enable the installation of wheelchair boarding facilities.

The trial focused on issues such as whether there was a dispute over specific rights and obligations between the bus companies and the plaintiffs, whether the failure of bus companies to provide wheelchair boarding facilities constituted discriminatory acts, whether there were justifiable reasons that could not be considered discrimination, and whether bus companies had an obligation to provide low-floor buses.

The first and second trials ruled that bus companies must provide boarding and alighting conveniences such as wheelchair boarding facilities on intercity buses and city buses including wide-area express, direct-seat, and seat-type buses, but dismissed claims against the government, Seoul City, and Gyeonggi Province.

However, the Supreme Court's judgment differed. The Supreme Court held that bus companies' failure to equip buses with wheelchair boarding facilities for people with physical disabilities constituted discriminatory acts violating the obligation to provide reasonable accommodations prohibited under the Act on the Prohibition of Discrimination against Persons with Disabilities. However, it pointed out that ordering bus companies to provide wheelchair boarding facilities on "all buses immediately" exceeded the limits of discretion.

The court stated, "Anyone must fulfill the obligation to prohibit discrimination as faithfully as possible within the scope that does not cause 'excessive burden or significantly difficult circumstances,' so bus companies have an obligation to provide wheelchair boarding facilities as reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities." However, it judged that "ordering the provision of wheelchair boarding facilities on all buses violates the principle of proportionality."

It further ruled, "The bus companies should have examined the specific and realistic likelihood of the plaintiffs boarding on certain routes among the routes they operate, the companies' assets, capital, liabilities, cash holdings, the necessity and feasibility of fare increases to cover the costs of providing wheelchair boarding facilities, and then determined the target buses for providing such facilities and the timing of fulfilling this obligation."

Moreover, the Supreme Court held that bus companies do not have an obligation to provide low-floor buses as reasonable accommodations under the Act on the Prohibition of Discrimination against Persons with Disabilities to A and others, and that the government, Seoul City, and Gyeonggi Province cannot be considered to have committed discriminatory acts.

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