close
close
hsuses

KG Mobility refutes credibility of reenactment of fatal accident

Theo

SEOUL, June 10 (Yonhap) — KG Mobility, formerly known as SsangYong Motor Co., on Monday refuted the results of a recent re-enactment test conducted to determine the cause of a suspected unintended acceleration accident that killed one of the company’s vehicles.

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 family of the deceased teenager has filed a lawsuit against KG Mobility, demanding compensation of around 760 million won (US$552,000).

When a court-appointed expert reenacted the accident in April, the results confirmed the claim that the grandmother did not press the accelerator during the accident. The plaintiffs argued that the acceleration was caused by a vehicle defect.

KG Mobility then disputed the objectivity of the reenactment test.

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

It claimed that the re-enactment test was carried out under the conditions cited by the plaintiffs, adding: “Various conditions, such as acceleration circumstances, differences between the accident vehicle and the test vehicle, and differences in road conditions, are inconsistent with the analysis results and verified objective data from the National Forensic Service.”

KG Mobility also argued that the test was conducted assuming that the driver pressed the accelerator pedal to 100 percent for approximately 35 seconds in all driving sections. It also pointed out that the accident occurred on an uphill road, but the test was conducted on flat ground.

The company also claimed that some data and the method for interpreting the transmission patterns observed during the mock test were not properly communicated to the expert.

It was also argued that the family’s independent test of the vehicle’s automatic emergency braking (AEB) system, carried out last month, was not recognised by the court and that such a test, which was not carried out under the supervision of the court, could not be considered objective evidence.

[email protected]
(END)

Related Posts