70s Man Dies After Falling on Sudden Stop Bus, Driver Also Guilty in 2nd Trial

Driver Emergency Braked at 29 km/h
"Passenger Stood Up Early" Defense...
1st and 2nd Trials Judge "Should Have Prevented Accident" Guilty Verdict

"In the culture of public transportation usage in our country, it is not uncommon for passengers to stand up from their seats before the bus comes to a complete stop. The defendant should have anticipated this and prevented situations that could cause sudden changes in speed." (Appellate court)

The bus driver was again sentenced to a suspended prison term in the second trial for an accident in which an elderly passenger fell and died inside a bus that made a sudden stop. ▶Asia Economy April 28 article [Seocho-dong Legal Story] Elderly person in their 70s dies after falling on a bus that made a sudden stop... Driver says "I was only watching the road ahead" - see article

The photo is unrelated to the article content.

According to the legal community on the 20th, the Seoul Central District Court Criminal Appeals Division 5-2 (Presiding Judge Choi Tae-young) recently sentenced Kim, a bus driver in his 60s, who was charged with violating the Traffic Accident Processing Act (professional negligence causing death), to 8 months in prison with a 2-year suspension, the same as in the first trial. He was also ordered to complete 80 hours of community service and 40 hours of safe driving lectures.

Earlier, on December 30, 2020, around 3 p.m., Kim was driving a bus from Sungnyemun in Jung-gu, Seoul, to Euljiro 1(il)-ga Station when he noticed late that the bus ahead stopped due to a taxi cutting in and applied sudden brakes. The bus was traveling at 29 km/h about 80 meters before the bus stop.

During this process, a grandmother in her 70s who had already stood up in preparation to get off was thrown forward due to the rebound. She hit her head hard on the pillar card reader near the driver's seat. She was hospitalized in a university hospital but passed away about a week later.

The prosecution pointed out that "Kim did not fulfill his duty of care in the course of work" and brought the case to criminal trial. On the other hand, Kim's side denied negligence, stating, "The defendant could not have predicted or avoided the accident."

The first trial found Kim guilty. The first trial court stated, "The vehicle driven by the defendant was not a passenger car but a city bus carrying passengers. There are not only seated passengers but also standing passengers, and boarding and alighting occur frequently," adding, "The defendant should have exercised more careful attention for passenger safety."

However, it also added, "The victim also made a mistake by pressing the stop bell and not standing up after the bus had come to a complete stop at the stop. This is considered one of the causes of the accident."

In the appeal, Kim's side argued, "The defendant only made a sudden stop because the bus ahead, which was maintaining a 7-8 meter distance, stopped. He fulfilled his duty to watch the road ahead," and "The only passenger who fell at that time was the grandmother." They also emphasized that the bus had regularly announced and posted notices advising passengers not to stand up while the bus is stopped.

However, Kim's claims were not accepted in the appeal either. The appellate court stated, "The black box footage shows the bus body shaking significantly back and forth at the time of stopping. It was a deceleration situation somewhat stronger than usual braking," and dismissed Kim's appeal. The court explained that although the grandmother was holding the safety bar while standing, the bus swayed enough to cause her to lose grip, resulting in the accident.

The appellate court stated, "It is acknowledged that the bus announcements include the message 'Especially elderly and vulnerable passengers, please get off slowly after the bus has stopped,'" but considering that some passengers stand up before the bus comes to a complete stop, Kim should have prevented the accident.

Kim's side has filed an appeal to the Supreme Court after rejecting the appellate court's decision, so this case will be subject to the Supreme Court's judgment.

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