▲ The above picture is not related to the content of the article.
Even if there is a traffic signal sign with an incorrect display, the Supreme Court has decided that it is not a defect in the installation and management of the competent local government if it is a situation that will not cause confusion for ordinary drivers.
The second part of the Supreme Court overturned the lower court ruling in favor of part of the plaintiff in the appeal for damages filed by the accident driver A and his family against the local government and returned the case to the Seoul High Court.
According to the court, Mr. A was involved in a car accident while driving a motorcycle around March 2017.
At the time, Mr. A was waiting for a signal at the three-way intersection to make a U-turn, and the U-turn instruction sign next to the traffic light had the phrase 'When turning left, at a pedestrian signal'.
The problem is that at the point where Mr. A was preparing for a U-turn, there was no road where he could make a left turn.
There was no left turn signal even at the traffic lights, so the sign and the signal system did not match.
In this situation, Mr. A made an illegal U-turn when the red light came on, and the car traveling straight at 71 km/h according to the straight ahead and left turn signals on the opposite road collided with the back of Mr. A's motorcycle.
Person A was seriously injured in the accident.
A's family filed a lawsuit claiming compensation for damages against the local government, which is the main body of installation and management of facilities, saying, "There is a signal sign that does not match the actual road conditions at the accident site, and the driver may make a wrong judgment."
The first trial ruled against the plaintiff, saying that the traffic sign at the accident point does not correspond to a defect in the Yeongjo, and even if it is regarded as a defect, there is no causal relationship to the accident that Mr. A suffered.
However, the second trial accepted Mr. A's claim and ordered compensation of 250 million won.
The Supreme Court overturned the judgment of the second instance, saying that it could not recognize the responsibility of the local government.
The Supreme Court ruled, "Even if there are some flaws in the sub-sign, it cannot be concluded that there is a defect in the installation or management of the sign if you can expect a common-sense and orderly way of use from the standpoint of a general and average driver."
The sign at the accident site is understood to mean that a U-turn is permitted when the traffic light illuminates a left turn or when the pedestrian traffic light is green.
However, there was no left turn road at the accident intersection, and there was no left turn signal at the traffic light, so Mr. A could only make a U-turn when the pedestrian signal was green.
In general, this means that drivers think they can make a U-turn when the pedestrian signal is green, but do not confuse that a U-turn is possible even when the pedestrian signal is red.
(Photo = Yonhap News)