KG Mobility questions the credibility of reconstructions of fatal accidents

KG Mobility questions the credibility of reconstructions of fatal accidents

SEOUL, June 10 (Yonhap) — KG Mobility, formerly known as SsangYong Motor Co., on Monday questioned the results of a recent reconstruction test conducted to determine the cause of a suspected unintentional accident involving a manufactured vehicle under acceleration that led to the death of a teenager.

The accident occurred in December 2022 in Gangneung, Gangwon Province, when a KG Mobility SUV driven by a grandmother went out of control, allegedly due to the car’s sudden unintended acceleration. This resulted in the death of her grandson, who was also in the vehicle.

The deceased teenager’s family has filed a lawsuit against KG Mobility, seeking compensation of about 760 million won ($552,000).

The results of an accident reconstruction examination conducted in April by a court-appointed expert confirmed the claim that the grandmother did not press the gas pedal during the accident. The plaintiffs argued that the acceleration was caused by a vehicle defect.

In response, KG Mobility questioned the objectivity of the reconstruction test.

KG Mobility questions the credibility of reconstructions of fatal accidents

This photo provided by KG Mobility shows the company’s factory in Pyeongtaek, south of Seoul. (PHOTO NOT FOR SALE) (Yonhap)

He argued that the reconstructive examination was carried out under the conditions presented by the plaintiffs and added: “Various conditions, such as the circumstances of acceleration, differences between the accident vehicle and the vehicle under investigation, and differences in road conditions, are not consistent with the recommendations of the National Forensic Science Service. analytical results and verified objective data.”

KG Mobility also argued that the test was carried out on the assumption that the driver pressed the accelerator pedal to 100 percent for approximately 35 seconds during all driving segments. It was also noted that the accident occurred on a driveway, but the investigation was conducted on flat ground.

The company also claimed that some of the data and interpretation of transmission patterns obtained during the reconstruction test were not properly communicated to the expert.

He also argued that the family’s independent examination conducted last month regarding the vehicle’s automatic emergency braking (AEB) system was not justified by the court and that such an examination, which was not conducted under the supervision of the court, could not be considered objective evidence.

[email protected]