Delivery driver who died after running a red light trying to deliver on time... Court ruling

"Violation of Traffic Signal Was the Cause,
But Recognized as a Work-Related Injury"

The court ruled that a delivery worker who died in a traffic accident after violating a traffic signal to meet delivery time qualifies for a work-related injury.

The photo is not directly related to the content of the article.

According to the legal community on the 23rd, the Seoul Administrative Court Administrative Division 8 (Presiding Judge Lee Jeong-hee) ruled in favor of the plaintiff in a lawsuit filed by the parents of Mr. A, who died in an accident during delivery, against the Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Service, seeking cancellation of the denial of survivor benefits and funeral expenses.

In September 2023, Mr. A, who was working as a delivery driver for a delivery platform, was riding a motorcycle at an intersection to pick up food for delivery. Although the signal changed to a left-turn signal, Mr. A ignored it and went straight. Eventually, he collided with a vehicle turning left from the opposite direction. Mr. A was taken to the hospital immediately after the accident but died two days later from hypovolemic shock caused by a ruptured spleen.

Mr. A’s survivors claimed that he suffered an industrial accident and filed for survivor benefits and funeral expenses with the Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Service, but the service refused to pay. Article 37, Paragraph 2 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act recognizes death caused by a worker’s criminal act or resulting from it as a work-related injury. The Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Service explained, "The accident occurred due to the deceased’s unilateral gross negligence in violating the traffic signal."

However, Mr. A’s survivors filed a lawsuit against this decision, and the court ruled in favor of Mr. A’s family. Although it was true that the accident occurred because Mr. A violated the signal, the court judged that the accident was unavoidable during the delivery work process. The court stated, "Due to the nature of delivery work, there was a need to deliver food quickly to avoid customer complaints," and "It is acknowledged that the accident was caused by Mr. A’s violation of the traffic signal, but this falls within the range of risks normally associated with driving during work performance."

Furthermore, the court considered that Mr. A had performed delivery work 32 times on the day of the accident and likely violated the signal while in a state of impaired judgment. The court explained, "It can be inferred that physical and mental fatigue had accumulated significantly at the time of the accident, and that momentary concentration or judgment was impaired, causing him not to properly recognize his speed or the traffic signal," adding, "It is highly likely that the accident occurred due to a momentary misjudgment leading to the signal violation." The court also took into account petitions submitted by Mr. A’s employer and fellow delivery drivers describing the urgent nature of the delivery work.