This study proceeds from the recognition that, although injuries and deaths of companion animals resulting from traffic accidents have increasingly become a recurrent form of everyday risk in a society where companion animal ownership is widespread, the current civil liability and insurance systems in Korea continue to address such losses within a compensation framework that treats companion animals primarily as “property” or “objects.” While the growing perception of companion animals as family members suggests that losses may extend beyond purely economic harm to include emotional and relational damage suffered by guardians, legal practice largely remains confined to pecuniary losses such as veterinary expenses, death-related damages, and funeral costs, with compensation for non-pecuniary harm recognized only in exceptional circumstances. Consequently, even in factually similar cases, disputes tend to be prolonged due to inconsistent assessments of medical expense reasonableness, divergent applications of comparative negligence, and variations in insurance coverage determinations.
Against this backdrop, the study examines recurring issues in traffic accident compensation cases involving companion animals from three principal perspectives: the ambiguity of evaluation standards for individual categories of damages, the non-standardized structure of comparative negligence determinations, and the structural overlap and gaps between automobile insurance and pet insurance compensation systems. Although veterinary expenses are generally recognized as pecuniary damages, reliance on the abstract standard of “social reasonableness” has led to inconsistent recognition of high-cost surgeries and long-term treatments. Death-related damages, typically assessed based on market value and funeral expenses, risk undervaluation in cases involving adopted or elderly animals. In addition, standards governing funeral expenses and compensation for emotional distress remain insufficiently structured, often relying on broadly defined notions such as customary scope or exceptional recognition.
With regard to comparative negligence, although the driver’s duty of care and the guardian’s duty of supervision coexist, there is a discernible tendency for guardian negligence to be automatically reflected or for negligence ratios to depend heavily on discretionary judgment. Factors such as leash noncompliance, sudden roadway entry, and inadequate in-vehicle safety measures are considered without a sufficiently structured framework that systematically evaluates contributory causation, the driver’s ability to avoid the accident, and the risk characteristics of the accident environment.
In the insurance context, the prevailing practice of addressing companion animal losses under automobile insurance property damage coverage, combined with the treatment-focused structure of pet insurance, generates structural risks of overlapping compensation, coverage gaps, and subrogation disputes between insurers. Notably, damages associated with death and non-pecuniary losses remain insufficiently covered within both insurance systems.
Rather than attributing these inconsistencies solely to the particularities of individual cases, this study identifies their underlying cause in the absence of a structured decision-making framework. To address this issue, it proposes a step-by-step analytical model encompassing accident classification, causation analysis, damage assessment by category, comparative negligence determination, and insurance application, together with a practical checklist designed for judicial and insurance practice. Adopting a gradual reform perspective, the study argues that the biological and relational characteristics of companion animals should not necessitate a fundamental reclassification of their legal status but should instead be reflected in a limited and structured manner at the damage assessment stage. Specifically, basic cremation and burial expenses are defined as ordinary damages, while compensation for emotional distress is recognized restrictively under exceptional conditions and subject to reasonable upper limits.
Furthermore, by proposing a functional allocation model in which automobile insurance assumes primary responsibility for basic losses while pet insurance supplements excess damages, the study aims to enhance consistency and predictability in judicial decisions and insurance practice. Ultimately, it contributes to the literature by moving beyond abstract debates on the legal status of companion animals and presenting practical interpretative standards and institutional improvement measures applicable to traffic accidents as a recurring domain of everyday risk.