Pedestrian surprised at the sight of a car falls down while jaywalking, but why is the driver guilty?

The court announced different decisions in the first and second trials on the punishment of a driver, charged with injuring a pedestrian, who was jaywalking, by surprising him and making him fall down, even though there was no physical contact. The court maintained the decision to acquit the defendant of a hit-and-run, but the bench acknowledged that the driver failed to take adequate action after the accident and found him guilty.

According to the legal circle on August 14, the accident occurred in a three-lane one-way street in Jung-gu, Seoul at around 10:30 p.m. January 25, 2022. The street ran alongside a market and was busy with other vehicles parked in the first and third lanes.

From between the parked cars, B (75) let one car pass, then tried to jaywalk--crossing the road in an area with no marked crosswalk--and stepped forward. That’s when he came across the vehicle of A (41). Surprised, B stepped back and fell down, breaking his right arm--an injury requiring ten weeks to completely heal. He did not come into physical contact with the vehicle.

The prosecutor indicted A for a hit-and-run (subject to the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Crimes) arguing that the area where the accident occurred was a place where pedestrians frequently jaywalked, that the driver forced B to suffer the injury by not slowing down despite catching sight of him from a distance, and that A left the scene of the accident.

A was acquitted in the first trial. The bench announced, “It is hard to say that it is the driver’s duty of care to predict a pedestrian suddenly appearing from between parked vehicles to cross the road illegally,” and added, “A discovered B and even stopped the car before they collided.” The judges further argued, “We cannot say that A had the duty of care to predict and prepare for injuries incurred when the surprised pedestrian fell backwards,” and said, “It is difficult to recognize the causal relation between A’s violation of his duty of care and the accident.”

The prosecutor appealed and added another charge, failure to take measures after an accident, based on the Road Traffic Act. He argued that the defendant did not take necessary measures, such as stop immediately after the accident and care for the injured person.

Criminal Appeals Court 5-3 (presiding judges: Jeong Deok-su, Gu Gwang-hyeon, Choi Tae-yeong) of the Seoul Central District Court acknowledged the later charge and imposed a fine of 500,000 won.

As for the hit-and-run charge, the bench in the second trial also acquitted A, explaining that there was no evidence to prove that he was driving over the speed limit or that he abruptly applied the brakes. They also pointed out that A had stopped the car at a distance of about two meters from the point where B started to step back. The judges described A’s duty of care as a driver, to carefully observe the front and sides to check for pedestrians crossing the street and to drive safely to prevent an accident, and said there was not enough evidence to prove that A had failed to fulfill his duty.

However, as for the charge that A failed to take measures after an accident, the judges announced, “We acknowledge the fact that the defendant did not take necessary measures to care for B, despite causing him to suffer a traffic-related injury.” The judges explained that they took into consideration the fact that B suffered an injury while trying to avoid A’s vehicle, and that A remained in the driver’s seat and did not get out of the car when arguing with B, and that he just drove away afterwards.

A objected to the guilty verdict and appealed the court decision.