[Sudden Acceleration Lawsuit] ① Sudden Acceleration at Sicheong Station Accident? ... Zero Confirmed Compensation Cases Despite Repeated Accidents

Sudden Acceleration Suspicions Occur Annually but Rarely Acknowledged
April's 'Volvo Sudden Acceleration Case' First Trial Ends with Consumer Defeat
‘BMW Sudden Acceleration' Second Trial Unusually Recognizes Manufacturer Liability
Still No Supreme Court Precedent Confirming Sudden Acceleration Compensation Liability

Editor's NoteOn the 1st, the issue of sudden unintended acceleration (SUA) emerged as a key point in the vehicle-ramming accident near Seoul City Hall Station that resulted in 15 casualties. The driver, in his 60s, claimed sudden unintended acceleration as the cause of the accident. Each time a similar incident occurs, the question of SUA draws public attention, and some cases lead to lawsuits. This two-part series sheds light on the reality, problems, and solutions related to SUA lawsuits.

#In October 2020, a woman in her 50s, Ms. A, briefly exited her Volvo S60 near Pangyo Library in Gyeonggi Province while the engine was running. Moments after re-entering the vehicle, the car suddenly surged forward with a loud roar, reaching speeds over 120 km/h and traveling approximately 500 meters before crashing into the flagpole inside the Bundang Pangyo Youth Center. Ms. A sustained injuries requiring 20 weeks of medical treatment. In March 2021, she filed a lawsuit against Volvo seeking damages worth 200 million KRW, claiming the sudden acceleration was due to a vehicle defect.

On the morning of the 2nd, police are controlling the area around a completely destroyed vehicle at an intersection near Seoul City Hall Station, where a major traffic accident occurred the previous day.
[Image source=Yonhap News]

The Seoul Central District Court’s 15th Civil Division (Presiding Judge Choi Gyu-yeon) ruled against the plaintiff in April. The court stated, “There is a significant possibility that the accident could have occurred even without a vehicle defect,” and concluded, “It is difficult to see that the accident was caused or exacerbated by a defect while Ms. A was using the vehicle normally and reasonably, and there is no other evidence to support this.” Ms. A appealed the first-instance ruling on May 9 and is currently undergoing a second trial.

Suspected SUA incidents occur every year. However, courts in South Korea rarely recognize sudden unintended acceleration caused by vehicle defects. According to the Korea Transportation Safety Authority, from 2010 to March 2024, there have been a total of 791 reports of suspected SUA vehicles domestically. While some lower courts in civil and criminal cases have acknowledged vehicle defects and imposed liability for damages, the Supreme Court has yet to recognize any SUA-related damages claims in its final rulings.

The 1999 case where 42 Daewoo Motors drivers filed lawsuits against the company citing sudden unintended acceleration drew significant attention. The first trial partially accepted the drivers’ claims that some vehicles lacked the shift lock?a SUA control device?and ruled in favor of some plaintiffs. However, this was overturned in the second and third trials. The Supreme Court ruled, “The absence of safety devices to prevent SUA does not mean the vehicle lacks the ordinarily expected safety,” and “From an automotive engineering perspective, it is difficult for SUA to occur without the driver pressing the accelerator.” The court held that under the Product Liability Act, the driver must prove the absence of their own fault and the vehicle defect, which was not sufficiently demonstrated. This Supreme Court ruling is frequently cited as a key precedent in similar cases.

In June last year, the court again ruled against victims in another suspected SUA case. The bereaved family of four who died in the 2016 ‘Busan Santa Fe’ accident in Gamman-dong, Nam-gu, Busan, filed a 10 billion KRW damages lawsuit against Hyundai Kia Motors and parts manufacturer Bosch but lost both the first and appellate trials.

On August 2, 2016, a Santa Fe vehicle carrying a family on vacation to Dadaepo collided with a trailer in front of a gas station in Nam-gu, Busan. As a result of this accident, one driver was injured and four people died. [Image source=Yonhap News]

The first and second trial courts stated, “The brake system of the accident vehicle was recognized as functioning normally, and if the brakes had been properly applied, the vehicle would have stopped within a certain distance,” and “Considering the inability to confirm whether the brake lights were on at the time, the plaintiff may have failed to press the brake pedal or mistakenly pressed the accelerator.” They added, “Liability for damages due to manufacturing defects must be proven by the claimant, but the private expert report submitted by the plaintiff is unreliable due to procedural fairness, objectivity, and vehicle preservation issues,” concluding, “Therefore, it cannot be presumed that the accident was caused by a Santa Fe defect, and the plaintiff’s claim is dismissed.”

The difficulty for consumers to win SUA lawsuits stems from the current Product Liability Act, which places the burden of proof for SUA accidents on the consumer. To hold vehicle manufacturers liable for damages, victims must directly identify the cause of the accident, such as vehicle defects. However, it is practically impossible for ordinary people without automotive expertise to do so, leaving victims to bear the losses themselves.

In fact, the first-instance ruling in the Volvo SUA suspicion case delivered in April unusually pointed out the limitations of the current Product Liability Act. The court noted, “Suspected SUA accidents have been occurring continuously for decades, and it is difficult to categorically deny that actual SUA has occurred in some cases. Considering that no final ruling in South Korea has ever recognized manufacturer liability for SUA, there is a need to ease the consumer’s burden of proof in such cases.”

The 2018 ‘BMW SUA suspicion death case’ was exceptional in overturning the first-instance consumer loss ruling and recognizing SUA caused by a vehicle defect as the cause of the accident. However, BMW Korea appealed, and the Supreme Court’s judgment is pending. The Seoul Central District Court’s 12th Civil Division (Presiding Judge Jung Jin-won), which handled the second trial, stated, “This accident occurred while the plaintiff was operating the vehicle normally, within the exclusive control of the manufacturer BMW Korea,” and “Therefore, it is judged to be an accident caused by a vehicle defect, and unless there are special circumstances, BMW Korea is liable for damages.”

Traffic accident specialist attorney Jung Kyung-il commented on the ruling, “The court judged that the SUA caused by the vehicle defect claimed by the driver occurred while the vehicle was being operated normally and within the exclusive control of the manufacturer, and recognized it as an accident caused by a vehicle defect,” but added, “Almost all other courts have ruled that the plaintiff failed to prove that the accident occurred while the driver was using the vehicle normally in similar SUA cases, so it is uncertain how the Supreme Court will rule.”