Supreme Court: Worker Who Died Due to Traffic Law Violation During Work Should Be Recognized as Industrial Accident

Court: "Cause of accident within risk scope of driving during work"
Criteria presented for excluding traffic violation deaths from Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance benefits

[Asia Economy Reporter Heo Kyung-jun] The Supreme Court has ruled that it is unfair not to recognize a death caused by a traffic law violation during work as an occupational accident.

The Supreme Court's First Division (Presiding Justice Park Jeong-hwa) announced on the 10th that it overturned the lower court's ruling in favor of the Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Service in the appeal trial of a lawsuit filed by the widow of deceased worker A, seeking cancellation of the denial of survivor benefits and funeral expenses, and remanded the case to the Seoul High Court.

A, who worked at a first-tier subcontractor of Samsung Display, died in 2019 after driving a company vehicle to attend a subcontractor training held by the primary contractor and returning to his workplace. He crossed the center line of the road and collided with an oncoming truck, resulting in a fire. At the time, the investigative agency presumed drowsy driving as the cause of the accident.

A's widow claimed survivor benefits and funeral expenses from the Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Service, but the service refused payment, reasoning that the cause of A's death was a criminal act violating the Special Act on Traffic Accident Handling due to crossing the center line, and thus did not qualify as an occupational accident. Consequently, A's widow filed a lawsuit.

Article 37, Paragraph 2 of the current Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act stipulates that injuries, illnesses, disabilities, or deaths caused by the worker's intentional self-harm or criminal acts are not considered occupational accidents.

The key issue in the trial was whether the worker's death caused by a self-inflicted traffic accident crossing the center line falls under "death caused by the worker's criminal act" under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, and thus cannot be regarded as an occupational accident.

The first trial court accepted A's widow's claim, stating, "Considering that the accident occurred during the course of work, the deceased's death should be regarded as an occupational accident." On the other hand, the second trial court ruled that since the cause of A's death was a criminal act, the Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Service's refusal to pay was justified, reasoning that the accident would not have occurred if A had not crossed the center line.

However, the Supreme Court's judgment differed. It stated that it is premature to conclude that the accident is not an occupational accident solely because it occurred due to crossing the center line.

The court ruled, "It cannot be definitively concluded that the accident and A's death were directly caused by a criminal act, and rather, it is highly likely that it falls within the scope of risks ordinarily associated with driving during the worker's performance of duties."

Furthermore, the Supreme Court noted that since the reason for crossing the center line was not clarified and the investigative agency presumed drowsy driving as the cause of the accident, it is highly likely that the accident falls within the scope of risks ordinarily associated with driving during the worker's performance of duties.

This ruling sets the standard for excluding deaths caused by traffic accidents due to traffic law violations from benefits under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act. The Supreme Court recognized a broader scope of protection for workers by ruling that violation of traffic laws does not automatically exclude payment of benefits under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, but only when the violation is the direct cause of death.

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