Acquaintance drives a car, gets into a car accident… Supreme Court “Car owner is also responsible”

Insurance company demands compensation for secretly drunk driving… Driver A says “Not responsible”… Court says “Cannot exclude post-facto acceptance”, ‘The Supreme Court ruled that a driver is liable for damages in a traffic accident caused by driving someone else’s car without their knowledge.’,
,
,

On the 30th of last month, the Supreme Court overturned the lower court’s decision that driver A was not liable for damages in an accident where he hit a pedestrian while driving a friend’s car secretly and referred the case back to the Seoul Central District Court. The photo is unrelated to the article. [Photo=Pixabay],
,
, ‘According to the legal profession on the 24th, the Supreme Court’s Third Division (Chief Justice Lee Heung-gu) overturned the original court’s ruling that dismissed a claim for compensation against driver A by an insurance company on the 30th of last month and referred the case to the Seoul Central District Court.’,
,
, ‘A claimed that in 2019, he drank with a friend, B, whom he met at a gaming club, at a nearby pub, parked at B’s house, and fell asleep together.’,
,
, ‘Later, while A was asleep, B took the car key and drove under the influence, causing an accident that hit a pedestrian. The insurance company paid over 140 million won to the traffic accident victim and then filed a claim for compensation against drivers A and B.’,
,
,

On the 30th of last month, the Supreme Court overturned the lower court’s decision that driver A was not liable for damages in an accident where he hit a pedestrian while driving a friend’s car secretly and referred the case back to the Seoul Central District Court. The photo shows the exterior of the Seoul Central District Court taken in 2017. [Photo=Newsis],
,
, ‘According to the Supreme Court precedent, even if a third party drives without permission, the owner (A) is held responsible if they tacitly consented to the driving or benefitted from the operation and control.’,
,
, ‘A argued that he was not liable for damages because he was not driving at the time of the accident. While the lower court ruled in favor of the insurance company, the appellate court concluded that A did not tacitly consent to B’s driving or exercise control over it, leading to A’s victory.’,
,
, ‘The appellate court stated, “It is unlikely that A could have anticipated or recognized that B would take the car key and drive without permission, even though the defendant’s car was parked near the residential area” and found that “it is difficult to conclude that A subsequently consented to or tolerated B’s driving.”‘,
,
, ‘However, the Supreme Court explained the rationale by saying, “If the accident had not occurred, it cannot be ruled out that the defendant retrospectively consented to the unauthorized driving” and that “it is difficult to conclude that A completely relinquished operational control and operational benefits.”‘,
,
,