Changwon Industrial Accident Attorney | With the Changwon Industrial Accident Attorney's Assistance, an Acquittal Was Pronounced

The client who came to the Changwon industrial accident attorney was working as a general manager in the management department of a hospital.

Not long after the client took office as general manager of the management department, an accident occurred in which an employee performing pipe inspection work in the machine room fell to the floor.

The accident occurred while the employee was performing the pipe inspection work without a work platform, without wearing a safety helmet, and without a safety harness attached.

The employee was immediately taken to a hospital and received treatment, but died from multiple organ failure caused by an epidural hemorrhage and other conditions.

The client therefore came seeking assistance to defend against a case for violation of the Occupational Safety and Health Act and occupational negligence causing death.

■ Statutes Relevant to the Case

◎ Occupational Safety and Health Act

▶ Article 38 (Safety Measures)

(1) A business owner shall take the measures necessary to prevent industrial accidents caused by any of the following hazards.

1. Hazards from machinery, equipment, and other facilities

2. Hazards from explosive, ignitable, and flammable substances, etc.

3. Hazards from electricity, heat, and other forms of energy

(2) A business owner shall take the measures necessary to prevent industrial accidents caused by hazards arising from poor work methods and the like during excavation, quarrying, loading and unloading, logging, transport, operation, conveyance, dismantling, handling of heavy objects, and other work.

(3) A business owner shall take the measures necessary to prevent industrial accidents that may occur when a worker performs work at any of the following places.

1. A place where a worker is at risk of falling

2. A place where soil, structures, and the like are at risk of collapse

3. A place where there is a risk of objects falling or flying

4. A place where there is a risk of hazards from natural disasters

(4) The specific details concerning the measures that a business owner must take under paragraphs (1) through (3) (hereinafter referred to as “safety measures”) shall be prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Employment and Labor.

▶ Article 39 (Health Measures)

(1) A business owner shall take the measures necessary to prevent any of the following health impairments (hereinafter referred to as “health measures”).

1. Health impairments caused by raw materials, gases, vapors, dust, fumes (fume refers to fine particles formed by the condensation of solid vapor produced by heat or chemical reaction), mists (mist refers to small liquid droplets floating in the air), oxygen deficiency, pathogens, and the like

2. Health impairments caused by radiation, harmful rays, high temperature, low temperature, ultrasound, noise, vibration, abnormal atmospheric pressure, and the like

3. Health impairments caused by gases, liquids, residues, and the like discharged from the workplace

4. Health impairments caused by work such as instrument monitoring, computer terminal operation, and precision work

5. Health impairments caused by simple repetitive work or work that places an excessive burden on the body

6. Health impairments that occur from failure to maintain appropriate standards for ventilation, lighting, illumination, heat retention, moisture prevention, cleanliness, and the like

(2) The specific details concerning the health measures that a business owner must take under paragraph (1) shall be prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Employment and Labor.

▶ Article 63 (Safety Measures and Health Measures of a Contractor)

Where a worker of a relevant subcontractor performs work at the contractor's workplace, the contractor shall take the necessary safety measures and health measures, such as the installation of safety and health facilities, to prevent industrial accidents involving its own workers and the workers of the relevant subcontractor. However, direct measures concerning the work conduct of a relevant subcontractor's worker, such as instructions on wearing protective equipment, are excluded.

▶ Article 167 (Penalty Provisions)
(1) A person who violates Article 38(1) through (3) (including cases to which it applies mutatis mutandis under Article 166-2), Article 39(1) (including cases to which it applies mutatis mutandis under Article 166-2), or Article 63 (including cases to which it applies mutatis mutandis under Article 166-2), and thereby causes the death of a worker, shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than 7 years or a fine of not more than 100 million won.

The Changwon industrial accident attorney argued that the client had not violated any duty of care, so the charge of occupational negligence causing death did not stand.

The client was not in a relationship of giving specific work instructions to the machine room workers and did not know in detail the methods of work within the machine room.

The client had also rarely visited the machine room where the accident occurred, primarily handled administrative work, and was neither the safety and health management manager nor the safety management manager.

Because the client had not directly violated any duty of care with respect to the victim's death, the firm argued that the charge of occupational negligence causing death did not stand.

Citing the relevant legal principles, the firm argued that the mere fact that work requiring safety measures for a hazardous task at the workplace had been carried out without those measures being taken could not, by itself, establish a person as the “actor” under Article 173, subparagraph 1 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Do8874, March 29, 2007, and Daejeon District Court Hongseong Branch Decision 2013Godan446, July 1, 2014, among others).

To be the “actor” under Article 173, subparagraph 1 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act, the case must be one in which the person instructs that work be performed without taking the safety measures required by the Rules on Occupational Safety and Health Standards, or one in which the violation is found to have been carried out by the actor, such as where the person leaves the work uncorrected while aware that it is being performed without those safety measures in place.

On this basis, the firm argued that the client was not the actor under the Occupational Safety and Health Act.

The Changwon industrial accident attorney argued for acquittal by submitting statements from the client's coworkers as evidence.

According to the coworkers' statements, the client had not personally instructed that work be performed without taking safety measures, nor had the client left the work uncorrected while aware that it was being performed without safety measures in place.

On this basis, the firm submitted the witness statements as evidence and argued for the client's acquittal, since the crime of violating the Occupational Safety and Health Act was not established.

The client was in a situation that required the assistance of an industrial accident attorney to defend against a case for violation of the Occupational Safety and Health Act and occupational negligence causing death.

Daeryun therefore assembled a working team of industrial accident attorneys with extensive experience in industrial accident litigation and assisted with the overall procedure of the case.

As a result, the court accepted Daeryun's argument and acquitted the client.

The client was very satisfied with the outcome of the case and expressed thanks on several occasions.

If you, like the client above, are troubled by industrial accident litigation, you may seek a consultation.