Ambulance Signal Violation Accident Heading to Nursing Home, Court Rules "Not an Emergency" [Seocho-dong Legal Story]

"The defendant was urgently driving an ambulance to transport a patient. It cannot be considered a violation of the duty of care for traffic safety."

This was the claim made by the defense attorney in the criminal trial of ambulance driver Mr. A (34, male), who ran a red light while on duty and hit a motorcycle rider at an intersection. However, the court did not accept the ambulance driver's side of the argument.

The photo is unrelated to the article content.

On February 23 last year, Mr. A made a left turn at about 20 km/h, violating the signal at an intersection in Dongjak-gu, Seoul. He was moving to the hospital with the siren on to transport a patient.

About five seconds after starting the left turn, Mr. A's ambulance collided with a motorcycle that was going straight from the opposite direction according to the signal. The motorcycle rider suffered fractures and other serious injuries, requiring about 12 weeks of hospitalization.

The prosecution indicted Mr. A on charges of injury under the Traffic Accident Processing Act, stating that he failed to fulfill his duty of care while on duty.

Standing in court, Mr. A denied the charges. His defense attorney argued, "It is difficult to see that the defendant had an obligation to stop under the Road Traffic Act regarding signals. Rather, the victim neglected the duty to watch ahead and collided with the ambulance."

According to Article 29, Paragraph 2 of the current Road Traffic Act, emergency vehicles such as ambulances and fire trucks may not stop at a red light in urgent and unavoidable cases. However, Paragraph 3 of the same article stipulates that "in such cases, the driver must proceed with particular caution for traffic safety."

According to the legal community on the 21st, Judge Kang Min-ho of the Criminal Division 10 at Seoul Central District Court recently found Mr. A guilty and sentenced him to six months in prison with a two-year probation.

The court first stated, "Article 29, Paragraph 2 of the Road Traffic Act cannot be interpreted as a provision exempting all obligations for emergency vehicle drivers," and added, "If there are pedestrians or vehicles crossing in the direction of travel, the driver must naturally stop." It also said, "At that time, the ambulance did not qualify as an emergency vehicle subject to special exceptions. It was not an 'urgent and unavoidable case' where stopping according to the signal could be waived."

Furthermore, the court said, "Since new risks to road traffic may arise during operation, the 'urgent use' required to classify a vehicle as an emergency vehicle must be strictly judged," and judged that the patient Mr. A was transporting was not in an emergency state. Considering that the person requesting transport was the patient's guardian, not medical staff, and that the final destination was a nursing home, the court found insufficient grounds for Mr. A to have judged the patient to be in an emergency condition.

The court pointed out, "Even if the signal had been obeyed, the delay would have been only a few minutes at most. It was not an urgent and unavoidable case warranting the risk of violating the signal," and added, "If the defendant had carefully observed the straight lane, he could have sufficiently seen the victim's motorcycle."

At the same time, the court considered "that the defendant drove the ambulance assuming it met the emergency vehicle criteria, and that the victim's negligence in failing to notice the ambulance ahead and proceeding as is was also a contributing cause of the accident."