Dog Owner Requests Condolence Money After Pet Dies Running Into Crosswalk... Who Is at Fault?

A Dog Running Without a Leash on an 8-Lane Road
"The Owner Asked for Part of the 1 Million Won Funeral Expenses"
Past Ruling... 70% Liability on the Driver, 30% on the Pet Owner

An accident occurred in which a dog without a leash ran onto an eight-lane road and died. The dog's owner is reportedly demanding funeral expenses from the car owner, sparking outrage among netizens.

A leash-free dog running onto an 8-lane road.
[Photo by Online Community]

On the 10th, a post titled "Requesting opinions on a dog traffic accident" was uploaded to an online community. The author, Mr. A, shared, "The dog suddenly ran out and died in the accident. I claim no fault, but it is not being accepted," and released a black box video showing the situation at the time.

The accident happened on the 1st on an eight-lane road. Mr. A was driving his car at 62 km/h in a lane with no car ahead and a clear front view. Suddenly, a dog without a leash ran onto the road from the sidewalk, and although Mr. A quickly turned the steering wheel and applied the brakes, he could not avoid the accident.

Mr. A said, "I was driving at 60-62 km/h on a 60 km/h road when the unleashed dog suddenly ran out," adding, "Right after the accident, I looked back and saw the dog owner crossing from the opposite lane." He continued, "I reported to the police and filed an insurance claim, but the dog owner is asking for part of the 1 million won funeral cost," and lamented, "I claimed no fault, but the dog owner's stance has not changed."

Mr. A also said, "There was a 45-month-old child in the car who witnessed the accident," and asked, "The child suddenly says the dog is 'sad' when eating and before sleeping. I wonder if compensation can be received for this as well."

Netizens who read the story responded with comments such as, "No fault should obviously be accepted. Rather, the dog owner should pay for the car repair costs," "It's their fault, yet they want to get funeral expenses for the dog. Such a shameless owner," "As a dog owner, it's unfortunate, but this is neglect of the pet," and "The dog is pitiful for having a bad owner." However, some also pointed out the car owner's fault. Although the exact accident details are unclear, drivers must stop temporarily at crosswalks whether or not pedestrians are present. While pets were legally considered property in the past, they are now recognized as sentient beings. If it had been a person instead of a pet, even if they suddenly ran onto the crosswalk, the driver would bear significant responsibility for a fatal accident.

Reviewing Related Precedents... Liability Split 70:30 Between Offending Vehicle and Pet Owner

Image unrelated to the article content. [Photo by Getty Images Bank]

Previous precedents ruled that responsibility should be divided 70:30 between the offending vehicle and the pet owner. Senior Judge Kang Young-ho of the Seoul Central District Court Civil Division 1002 ruled in a damage compensation lawsuit (2019Gaso2068733) filed by pet owner Mr. B against driver Mr. C, ordering "Mr. C to pay 4.78 million won," partially ruling in favor of the plaintiff.

The case involved Mr. C, who violated a traffic signal in July 2016 and hit and killed Mr. B's dog crossing the crosswalk without a leash. Mr. B, who was walking the dog at the time, was deeply shocked and filed a lawsuit against Mr. C.

This case is similar to Mr. A's online community post. Mr. A did not comply with Article 27, Paragraph 1 of the Road Traffic Act, "Duty to Protect Pedestrians," which requires drivers to stop not only when pedestrians are crossing but also when they intend to cross at crosswalks. This law was enacted to improve the poor pedestrian safety conditions, where over 130 people die annually due to right-turning vehicles, even at crosswalks where pedestrians should be absolutely protected.

Senior Judge Kang ruled, "Mr. C has an obligation to compensate Mr. B and others for material and mental damages caused by the accident." However, he also noted, "Mr. B was negligent for not having the dog on a leash," and assigned 70% fault to Mr. C.

He added, "Since Mr. B and others suffered great pain from the death of the dog they raised like a daughter for over four years, Mr. C has an obligation to compensate financially," and considering the significant expenses Mr. B incurred as the dog's owner, including funeral costs, and the shock of witnessing the dog's death at the scene, ordered Mr. C to pay Mr. B 2.5 million won for the dog's market value and consolation damages, and 1 million won each to two other plaintiffs.

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