[Exclusive] Sudden Acceleration Suspected Car Manufacturer Deemed 'Defective' if Data Not Submitted... Bill Passed

[Sudden Acceleration Accident Controversy ①]
Consensus on Defect Presumption... Passing of Burden of Proof Shift Law Remains Distant
Sudden Acceleration Added to Defect Presumption Criteria if Data Not Submitted
Mandatory Accident Data Recorder and Record Standard Established
Discussion on Burden of Proof Shift in 'Product Liability Act' Postponed

Editor's NoteIncidents suspected to be caused by sudden unintended acceleration (SUA) have become a 'hot potato' in our society. With the increasing adoption of electric vehicles that have rapid acceleration capabilities, concerns over SUA incidents have escalated into fear. Victims criticize that the information accessible to prove vehicle defects is excessively limited. Manufacturers point out the misuse of the system, arguing that even simple driver errors can be mistaken for SUA incidents. This article summarizes the causes of the SUA controversy, the possibility of identifying causes, ultimate solutions, and coping strategies. Through this, we aim to find clues to resolve the endless disputes between victims and manufacturers without conclusions.

Going forward, if the manufacturer of a vehicle suspected of SUA does not submit accident-related data, the vehicle will be presumed to have a defect. If presumed defective, the government can issue a mandatory recall order to the manufacturer, and victims are expected to have a higher chance of winning civil lawsuits.

According to a compilation of our coverage on the 14th, on the 7th, the 10th Land, Infrastructure and Transport Committee meeting of the National Assembly passed a partial amendment bill to the Automobile Management Act containing such provisions. The bill, which passed the subcommittee of the Land Committee, is scheduled to be reviewed by the Legislation and Judiciary Committee, then proceed to the plenary session before being sent to the government. A representative from the office of Han Junho, a member of the Democratic Party of Korea who proposed the bill, said, “Although it is difficult to complete legislation within this year due to scheduling, the fact that the bill passed the subcommittee by consensus means that the bill’s framework and direction have been established.”

The core of this amendment is that if repeated accidents occur in the same vehicle model and the manufacturer does not submit data, the vehicle is presumed to have a manufacturing defect. Until now, the conditions for presuming defects only mentioned fire and repeated traffic accidents. This amendment adds a clause related to SUA, defined as “accidents caused by vehicle devices operating contrary to the driver’s intention.”

Article 31 of the Automobile Management Act contains provisions for correcting manufacturing defects in vehicles. The clause presuming defects when manufacturers fail to submit data was newly established in February 2020. The need for such legislation arose after the 2018 BMW fire incidents, when inadequate data submission by the German headquarters during accident investigations became controversial.

Recently, as SUA-suspected accidents have become a social issue, this amendment was additionally made. Especially, electric vehicles have superior instantaneous acceleration compared to internal combustion engine vehicles. With the increase in electronic equipment, concerns about defects have grown even more. Videos related to SUA-suspected accidents have spread mainly on social networking services (SNS), greatly heightening consumer anxiety about vehicle defects.

Accordingly, the National Assembly amended the law to require manufacturers to submit accident-related evidence to the Performance Testing Agency (Automobile Safety Research Institute under the Korea Transportation Safety Authority) whenever an SUA-suspected accident occurs. Additionally, it mandates the installation of Event Data Recorders (EDR) and plans to establish standard guidelines for the recording content, analysis report preparation criteria, and information provision related to the recorders.

However, the proposal to mandate accident investigations by the Performance Testing Agency for suspected SUA cases was excluded from this amendment. Currently, the National Police Agency leads investigations into suspected SUA accidents first, and when vehicle defects are suspected as the cause, the Automobile Safety Research Institute and the National Forensic Service collaborate to provide support. A senior official from the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport said, “Under current law, if the National Police Agency leads accident investigations, mandating the Automobile Safety Research Institute to also investigate would cause overlapping and conflicting duties.”

Victims of SUA-suspected accidents have long argued that their access to information is limited compared to manufacturers. They also pointed out the limitations of ordinary people fighting against manufacturers who possess vast specialized knowledge. This is often described metaphorically as being on a 'tilted playing field,' where fair competition is impossible.

Therefore, the amendment submitted to the Land Committee focused on balancing information equity between victims and manufacturers. The government is also considering various measures, such as adding items like brake sensor pressure values to the EDR standard items and allowing the sale of equipment capable of reading EDR records on the market.

However, five bills related to the ultimate goal of victims?amendments to the Product Liability Act?are still pending in the National Assembly’s Political Affairs Committee. This law requires manufacturers to prove that there is no defect in the vehicle (and thus no obligation for compensation) when victims suffer accidents due to defects in products such as automobiles. These five bills have not even been discussed in the relevant standing committee subcommittees. If not passed by May 29 next year, when the 21st National Assembly ends, they will be automatically discarded.

Manufacturers oppose this shift of the burden of proof, arguing that it could lead to unnecessary disputes and excessive litigation. They also express concerns that requiring evidence submission even before lawsuits are filed could lead to system abuse and potentially result in the leakage of manufacturers’ trade secrets.

In response, Cho Eung-cheon, a member of the Democratic Party of Korea, has taken the lead in proposing a partial amendment to the Product Liability Act that includes provisions for a 'confidentiality order system' to prevent trade secret leaks. The bill stipulates that if a manufacturer refuses a court order to submit evidence in a compensation lawsuit, the victim’s claims will be accepted as true, and trade secrets cannot be used or disclosed for purposes other than the lawsuit.

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