At a bus stop, the doors close before all passengers have finished getting off, and the bus begins to move. A passenger falls and is diagnosed with a fracture.
This is a type of accident that repeatedly occurs among city bus operators. And it has one critical difference from ordinary traffic accidents.
Departing before the doors are fully closed is classified as one of Korea’s 12 major traffic violations. Even if the bus is covered by comprehensive insurance, and even if a settlement has been reached with the injured passenger, criminal proceedings may still continue separately. Court decisions go even further: even when the driver’s negligence is not clearly established, the bus company may still be held liable for the passenger’s injuries.
This article summarizes the three things city bus operators must understand about their duty to prevent passenger falls: court rulings, legal obligations, and practical response measures.
The first thing to understand is how liability is structured. Many transportation companies assume that the company is liable only when the driver has done something wrong. In practice, however, courts apply a different standard.
Under Korea’s Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, the vehicle operator—typically the bus company—is generally liable when a passenger is injured or killed.
To avoid liability, the company must prove that the accident was caused by the passenger’s intentional act or attempted suicide. In practice, meeting this standard is extremely difficult.
In other words, the exemption standard for passenger accidents is far stricter than for ordinary third-party injury claims. Simply arguing that “our driver was not at fault” is not enough to avoid liability.
Published court decisions clearly demonstrate this structure.
The common issue in both cases was the timing mismatch between the door operation and the vehicle’s departure.
Did the bus begin moving before the door was fully closed?
That brief moment becomes the central issue in determining liability.
If the passenger also violated safety rules or contributed to the accident, the compensation amount may be reduced. However, it is rare for the company’s liability to disappear entirely.
In summary, the issue a bus company can realistically dispute is not whether it has any responsibility at all, but rather:
What exactly happened at that moment?
To establish that, objective records are essential.
The duty to prevent passenger falls is not imposed by a single law. It is regulated through two separate legal frameworks.
When a violation involves a bus moving before the doors are fully closed, the case may follow a completely different legal path from an ordinary traffic accident.
All drivers must take necessary measures, including properly opening and closing vehicle doors, to prevent passengers from falling out of the vehicle.
This is the basic statutory provision governing the duty to prevent passenger falls.
A typical violation is departing while a door is open or before it has fully closed.
The Passenger Transport Service Act also prohibits transportation workers from starting or operating a vehicle before its doors are fully closed.
Bus drivers therefore have two separate layers of responsibility:
When a violation occurs, authorities may review not only the individual driver’s conduct, but also the company’s management and supervision responsibilities.
This is the critical point.
Under Korea’s Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, violating the duty to prevent passenger falls—including departing before the doors are fully closed—is classified as one of the 12 major traffic violations.
The consequences are clear:
An accident that might otherwise be resolved through insurance and settlement can become a criminal case solely because the bus departed before the doors were fully closed.
If the company is also found to have failed in its safety management duties, the matter may expand to include employer liability and administrative penalties.
We explain the broader corporate liability structure in greater detail in our article, “Can a Bus Company Also Be Penalized After One of the 12 Major Traffic Violations?”
When the court rulings and legal duties are considered together, the appropriate response for transportation companies comes down to two priorities.
The central question in the court cases discussed above was ultimately the same:
Did the vehicle start moving only after the door was fully closed?
A company that can prove what happened and a company that cannot are placed in completely different positions, even in otherwise similar accidents.
The starting point of a legal response is therefore not a lawyer, but a reliable recordkeeping system.
Data should show, in chronological order:
These records allow the company to clarify the facts during compensation negotiations and provide a basis for arguing contributory negligence by the passenger where appropriate.
We discuss the cost impact of a single passenger accident—and why CCTV footage alone may not be enough—in our article, “Can AI Prevent Passenger Falls and Door-Open Departure Accidents on Route Buses?”
A more fundamental response is to reduce the number of moments in which door operation, passenger movement, and vehicle departure become misaligned.
A.I.MATICS’ Roadscope 10 DVR integrates AI safe-driving functions with DVR and digital tachograph capabilities. Beginning with Roadscope 10, it provides two new detection and warning functions designed to address boarding and alighting risks on city buses.
AI recognizes passengers’ locations and postures inside the bus and alerts the driver when a passenger may be at risk of falling.
This helps drivers recognize the danger of departing while:
AI detects passengers near the bus doors and alerts the driver when it identifies a risk of entrapment.
This helps reduce situations in which:
It is important to clarify that these functions do not physically stop or control the vehicle.
They detect risk and notify the driver. The driver remains responsible for the final decision and vehicle operation, while AI monitors areas inside the bus and around the doors that the driver may not be able to observe alone.
Detected events are also recorded automatically.
This means that both priorities can be addressed through a single system:
| Category | Key Point |
|---|---|
| Court rulings | Even when clear driver negligence is not established, the company may still be liable if a passenger is injured. The main issue that can be disputed is what exactly happened at the time of the accident. |
| Legal obligations |
Article 39, Paragraph 3 of the Road Traffic Act and Article 26 of the Passenger Transport Service Act both apply. Departing before the doors are fully closed is one of the 12 major traffic violations, meaning insurance and settlement do not automatically prevent criminal prosecution. |
| Response | Record door operation, vehicle departure, and passenger status in chronological order, and establish a system that warns the driver before a dangerous situation becomes an accident. |
The legal consequences of passenger-fall prevention are too serious to rely solely on an individual driver’s attention.
A system that records what happened, and a system that warns before it happens—these two capabilities help protect both the company and the driver.
Request an Assessment of Your Company’s Boarding, Alighting, and Accident-Evidence System
A. It is difficult.
A violation of the duty to prevent passenger falls, including departing before the doors are fully closed, is classified as one of the 12 major traffic violations under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents.
Criminal proceedings may therefore continue regardless of whether the vehicle was covered by comprehensive insurance or a settlement was reached with the injured passenger.
A settlement may be considered during sentencing, but it does not automatically eliminate criminal liability.
A. Yes.
Under the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, company liability is generally recognized in passenger injury cases. It is therefore difficult to avoid liability based only on the driver’s statement.
The key is objective evidence supporting that statement.
If the company has data showing:
it can establish the facts more accurately. If passenger negligence is confirmed, those records may also support a reduction in the compensation amount.
A. The compensation amount may be significantly reduced if the passenger is found to have been substantially at fault.
However, that determination still depends on the specific facts, including where the passenger was and what the passenger was doing at the moment the door began closing.
Video and operational data are necessary to establish contributory negligence by the passenger.
A. An in-vehicle AI camera recognizes passengers’ locations and postures and alerts the driver when it detects a potential fall-risk situation.
For example, the system may notify the driver if the bus is about to depart while:
The system does not physically control the vehicle. Instead, AI monitors areas inside the bus that the driver may not be able to observe alone and provides a warning to support the driver’s decision.
A. The company may also face liability, separately from the driver’s criminal punishment.
As explained above, the company is generally subject to civil liability for passenger injuries.
From an administrative perspective, authorities may also review whether the company fulfilled its safety management obligations under the Passenger Transport Service Act. Depending on the findings, penalties such as administrative fines, surcharges, or suspension of operations may be considered.
A company with documented safety training, dangerous-driving monitoring, and corrective-action records may be treated differently from a company without such records.
The broader liability structure is explained in our article, “Can a Bus Company Also Be Penalized After One of the 12 Major Traffic Violations?”
A. To determine whether the bus started moving before the doors were fully closed, the following information should be available in chronological order:
Together, these records can serve as evidence that the company fulfilled its safety management duties.
This article is based on publicly available statutory provisions and summaries of published court decisions under Korea’s Road Traffic Act, Passenger Transport Service Act, Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, and Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act.
The legal assessment of an individual accident may vary depending on the specific facts and circumstances. Actual cases should therefore be reviewed by a qualified legal professional.