Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act | Analysis of an Administrative Court Judgment Recognizing as an Occupational Accident a Death Caused by Crossing the Center Line and Colliding With a Dump Truck on the Commute to Work

The plaintiff in this litigation was the wife of A, a worker employed by OO Co., Ltd.

A was driving his own passenger vehicle to commute to work.

As his vehicle crossed the solid yellow center line^*, it collided head-on with a dump truck that happened to be approaching from the opposite lane.

(*Unlike a dashed line, which may be crossed temporarily when overtaking, a solid line must never be crossed.)

A died as a result of this accident, and A's wife claimed that the accident constituted an 🔗occupational accident and sought the payment of survivors' benefits and funeral expenses from OO Co., Ltd.

However, OO Co., Ltd. issued a decision denying payment, stating that, ‘upon review, A's crossing of the center line while driving, a violation of statute, was the direct cause of this accident, so it is difficult to recognize it as an occupational accident.’

A's wife then filed a request for reexamination of that decision, but all such requests were dismissed, and she brought this litigation against OO Co., Ltd., asserting that “this accident was a commuting accident and cannot be concluded to have arisen from a criminal act committed through A's intent or gross negligence.”

The Administrative Court that heard this litigation under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act rendered a judgment ordering OO Co., Ltd. to revoke the disposition denying payment of the survivors' benefits and funeral expenses claimed by A's wife.

First, the court found that A had suffered this accident on the route to his workplace, and that his departure time was within a normal time range that would ordinarily allow him to arrive in time for working hours, so this constituted an accident occurring during the commute to work.

In addition, the court explained that A had not driven under the influence of alcohol, and that, upon reviewing the traffic accident report prepared by the police, the cause of the accident and the relevant driver factors were recorded as ‘unknown,’ so no circumstances were found indicating that A had driven recklessly or had caused the accident intentionally.

Accordingly, the court stated as the grounds for its judgment that A's crossing of the center line was the result of mere carelessness while driving on a national highway that is structurally prone to accidents during the dark, early-morning hours of winter, and that it is difficult to regard A's crossing of the center line as gross negligence in this accident, and that it cannot be deemed a criminal act, which is an exception under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act to what is regarded as an occupational accident.

We have analyzed an Administrative Court judgment recognizing as an occupational accident a death caused by crossing the center line and colliding with a dump truck during the commute to work, in connection with the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act.

When claiming damages from a company for an industrial accident, rather than simply listing one's own position, it is important to clearly prove that the company breached its duty of care and that the employer bears liability.

It is also necessary to claim an appropriate amount of damages according to the circumstances of the harm.

Because this process can be quite complex, parties may wish to consult with an attorney experienced in industrial accident matters and seek legal assistance.

The Labor and Industrial Accident Group of Daeryun Law Firm LLP actively assists clients, centered on attorneys handling damages matters and civil matters who are registered with the Korean Bar Association. If you need assistance, you are welcome to contact Daeryun at any time.