Why the Court Ruled 'Not Guilty' After Roof Carrier Flew Off and Hit a Bus

Published 17 Jul.2025 07:03(KST)

Court: "Difficult to Recognize Accident... Not Guilty of Failing to Take Measures After Incident"

The court has acquitted a car owner who drove past the scene after a 'roof carrier' installed on the roof of their vehicle fell off and collided with a bus traveling in the opposite lane on the highway. The court determined that, considering the circumstances and situation at the time of the incident, it would have been difficult for the driver to recognize that an accident had occurred. On June 24, Judge Kim Juseong of the Suwon District Court Criminal Division 5 Single Judge Panel found Defendant A not guilty of violating the Road Traffic Act (failure to take measures after an accident) (Case No. 2025Gojung40). A roof carrier is a device installed on top of a vehicle to carry large items.

Photo for article understanding purposes only, unrelated to the content. Asia Economy DB.

[Facts]

On the afternoon of December 19, 2023, A was driving their own Grand Carnival vehicle on the highway at a speed more than 20 km/h over the speed limit when the roof carrier mounted on the vehicle fell off. The roof carrier then collided with a bus traveling in the opposite lane. After the incident, A stopped the vehicle on the shoulder and confirmed that the roof carrier was missing, but left the scene without taking any further action. Prosecutors charged A with violating the Road Traffic Act, arguing that A had left the scene without taking any measures, even though A could have foreseen that the roof carrier falling off could cause a traffic accident or pose a traffic hazard.

[Court Ruling]

Judge Kim Juseong stated, "It is difficult to say, beyond a reasonable doubt, that A was even indirectly aware that a traffic accident had occurred," and delivered a verdict of not guilty. He especially noted, "From the perspective of an ordinary person, it is difficult to anticipate a situation in which a roof carrier would fly off and strike a bus head-on in the opposite lane." He explained, "A's average speed at the time was about 104 km/h, which does not suggest that A was driving at a speed that would make the risk of the roof carrier falling off foreseeable. It also appears that A would have had difficulty hearing the noise of the roof carrier flying off while driving on the highway. Considering these factors, it seems unlikely that A could have anticipated or recognized this accident."

Judge Kim also determined that even if A could have recognized the possibility of an accident, it would be difficult to conclude that A violated the Road Traffic Act. Article 54 of the Road Traffic Act obligates a driver to immediately stop and take measures such as aiding the injured or providing personal information to the victim and reporting to the police officer if a traffic accident occurs due to the operation of a vehicle. However, even if it is possible to foresee the accident after the fact, the law does not require a driver to 'immediately' stop and report or to report the specific location of the accident if the accident was not recognized at the time.

The court also considered that A had installed the roof carrier in July 2022, but the accident occurred in December 2023; that the roof carrier was only 35 cm in length; and that it was attached to the vehicle in a way that left no space between the carrier and the vehicle. Based on these factors, the court concluded that it would have been difficult for A to recognize that the roof carrier had flown off while driving.