“Accident involving a passenger who suddenly jumped onto the tracks”… Station employee found not guilty on appeal

Station worker A was indicted on charges of professional negligence causing harm.
The court said, “In order to maintain the obligation to depart on time… it would have been difficult to predict that an accident would have occurred.”

A station employee who was indicted for failing to fulfill his safety management duties in connection with an accident in which a passenger who suddenly jumped onto the tracks was hit by a train was found not guilty in the first trial and also in the appeals court. This is because it was judged that the station staff could not predict the passenger's behavior.

According to the legal community on the 5th, the Daegu District Court's 1st Criminal Division dismissed the prosecutor's appeal against station worker A, who was accused of professional negligence last November, and upheld the lower court's ruling.

Mr. A is suspected of causing an accident by neglecting his duty of care, such as passenger control, while in charge of traffic control at a train station in December 2021.

At that time, passenger B was heading to the platform when he was hit by a train while trying to cross the tracks. As a result, Mr. B was seriously injured and was taken to the hospital. The prosecution determined that the accident occurred because Mr. A failed to comply with his duty to control passengers at the crossing and entered the station room first.

Mr. A denied the charges, saying that the reason he entered the station office first was to perform railroad control duties. At the time, Mr. A was carrying out passenger control and railway control work alone, but he emphasized that it was realistically impossible to perform both tasks at the same time because the distance between the platform and the station office was so long.

In addition, Mr. A also claimed that there were difficulties in predicting the occurrence of the accident. The victim suffered an accident while walking on the tracks rather than at a crosswalk, and even if proper control was in place, the accident could not have been prevented.

The first trial court ruled in Mr. A’s favor. The court said, “The reason Mr. A stopped controlling the crossing and entered the station office early was to fulfill another obligation of departing on time,” and added, “Therefore, it is difficult to say that there was a violation of the duty of care at work.” He continued, "The victim's blood was found at that location along with testimony that the victim was on the tracks away from the railroad crossing at the time of the accident," and "the location of the accident was on the railroad tracks, not the railroad crossing."

The prosecution filed an appeal, but the appellate court also made the same decision. The appellate court explained the reason for the acquittal by saying, “The place where the victim was hit by the train is likely to be a track rather than a railroad crossing, so it seems impossible for Mr. A to anticipate and prevent the accident.”

Attorney Kim Seok-gyun of Daeryun Law Firm (Limited), who was in charge of legal representation for Mr. A in the appeal trial, said, "According to Article 254, Paragraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, the indictment must be specified by specifying the date, place, and method of the crime." He added, “It appears that these facts were reflected in the not guilty verdict.”

[View full article] - “Accident involving a passenger who suddenly jumped onto the tracks”… Station employee found not guilty on appeal (link)