• Journal of Cadastre & Land InformatiX
• /
• v.47 no.2
• /
• pp.233-254
• /
• 2017

The purpose of this study is to analyze the main factors influencing the severity of traffic accidents and to visualize spatiotemporal characteristics of traffic accidents in Seoul. To do this, we collected the traffic accident data that occurred in Seoul for four years from 2012 to 2015, and classified as slight, serious, and death traffic accidents according to the severity of traffic accidents. The analysis of spatiotemporal characteristics of traffic accidents was performed by kernel density analysis, hotspot analysis, space time cube analysis, and Emerging HotSpot Analysis. The factors affecting the severity of traffic accidents were analyzed using decision tree model. The results show that traffic accidents in Seoul are more frequent in suburbs than in central areas. Especially, traffic accidents concentrated in some commercial and entertainment areas in Seocho and Gangnam, and the traffic accidents were more and more intense over time. In the case of death traffic accidents, there were statistically significant hotspot areas in Yeongdeungpo-gu, Guro-gu, Jongno-gu, Jung-gu and Seongbuk. However, hotspots of death traffic accidents by time zone resulted in different patterns. In terms of traffic accident severity, the type of accident is the most important factor. The type of the road, the type of the vehicle, the time of the traffic accident, and the type of the violation of the regulations were ranked in order of importance. Regarding decision rules that cause serious traffic accidents, in case of van or truck, there is a high probability that a serious traffic accident will occur at a place where the width of the road is wide and the vehicle speed is high. In case of bicycle, car, motorcycle or the others there is a high probability that a serious traffic accident will occur under the same circumstances in the dawn time.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.24 no.4
• /
• pp.3-36
• /
• 2023

The main issue in medical malpractice civil litigation is medical negligence and the causal relationship between medical negligence and damages. Regarding the presumption of causality in cases where medical negligence is proven, there is a previous Supreme Court decision 93da52402 on February 10, 1995, but it is difficult to find a case that satisfies the textual requirements of the above decision, and yet, in practice, the above decision is cited. In many cases, causal relationships were assumed, and criticism was consistently raised that it was inconsistent with the text of the above judgment. In its ruling, the Supreme Court reorganized and presented a new legal principle regarding the presumption of causality when medical negligence is proven in a civil lawsuit. According to this, If the patient proves ① the existence of an act that is assessed as a medical negligence, that is, a violation of the duty of care required of an ordinary medical professional at the level of medical care practiced in the field of clinical medicine at the time of medical practice, and ② that the negligence is likely to cause damages to the patient, the burden of proving the causal relationship is alleviated by presuming a causal relationship between medical negligence and damage. Here, the probability of occurrence of damage does not need to be proven beyond doubt from a natural scientific or medical perspective, but if recognizing the causal relationship between the negligence and the damage does not comply with medical principles or if there is a vague possibility that the negligence will cause damage, causality cannot be considered proven. Meanwhile, even if a causal relationship between medical negligence and damage is presumed, the party that performed the medical treatment can overturn the presumption by proving that the patient's damage was not caused by medical negligence. Meanwhile, unlike civil cases, the standard is 'proof beyond reasonable doubt' in criminal cases, and the legal principle of presuming causality does not apply. Accordingly, in a criminal case of professional negligence manslaughter that was decided on the same day regarding the same medical accident, the case was overturned and remanded for not guilty due to lack of proof of a causal relationship between medical negligence and death. The above criminal ruling is a ruling that states that even if 'professional negligence' is recognized in a criminal case related to medical malpractice, the person should not be judged guilty if there is a lack of clear proof of 'causal relationship'.