The Supreme Court ordered a retrial of the second-instance ruling that recognized the possibility of sudden acceleration in the 'BMW sudden acceleration suspected accident' case, in which a couple in their 60s died on the Honam Expressway in 2018, following a damage compensation lawsuit filed by their bereaved family. This is the first time in five years that the Supreme Court overturned the ruling that ordered BMW Korea to compensate the bereaved family.
The Honam BMW case was the first instance in which the court acknowledged the possibility of sudden acceleration in a vehicle and imposed liability for damages on the manufacturer. The Supreme Court concluded that there was insufficient evidence that the vehicle had suddenly accelerated and could not rule out the possibility that the driver had incorrectly operated the pedals.
The Supreme Court's 1st Division (Chief Justice Ma Yong-joo) announced on the 29th that it had overturned the second-instance ruling in which BMW Korea was ordered to compensate the children of A, who died in a traffic accident in 2018, and returned the case to the Seoul Central District Court.
A was driving a BMW sedan in May 2018 when he crashed into a guardrail at a speed exceeding the speed limit, traveling at over 200 km/h, leading to his death. His wife, who was a passenger, also died.
The bereaved children filed a compensation lawsuit against BMW Korea, suspecting sudden acceleration. They noted that they had requested BMW Korea to check the vehicle before a long-distance drive two days before the accident, and the following day, a BMW Korea employee returned the vehicle after completing the inspection and maintenance.
The first-instance court did not accept the children's claims, but the second-instance court was different. In 2020, the 12th Civil Appeal Division of the Seoul Central District Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, ordering BMW Korea to compensate the bereaved family with 40 million won each.
The second-instance court stated, 'Considering various circumstances, it appears that the accident occurred due to a defect in the automobile while A was normally operating the vehicle.' It added, 'Except for the fact that it was high-speed driving, the driver was operating the vehicle normally.' Furthermore, it said, 'Considering the possibility that the brake pedal can become stiff when there is an engine defect, it is difficult to conclude that A did not attempt to press the brake pedal based solely on the non-operation of the brake lights.'
However, the Supreme Court, which reviewed the case, viewed the second-instance ruling as erroneous. The Supreme Court stated, 'Looking at the black box footage around the vehicle, it was recorded that the appearance of the vehicle was captured from 10 seconds before the accident until the time of the accident, and the brake lights (which light up when the brake pedal is pressed) were not illuminated.' It further noted, 'This only suggests the possibility that the driver did not press the brake pedal at the time of the accident.' It also mentioned, 'There is no evidence to confirm from which point and under what circumstances this vehicle began to accelerate suddenly,' and 'No circumstances that could be suspected as the cause of the sudden acceleration of the vehicle have been identified.'