CONTENTS
- 1. Occupational Negligence Causing Death, a Case in Which the Establishment of Joint Principal Offenders Was at Issue in Connection With the Humidifier Disinfectant Case
- - Occupational Negligence Causing Death, the Determinations of the First and Second Instances
- 2. Occupational Negligence Causing Death, the Supreme Court's Determination on Whether Joint Principal Offenders Were Established
- 3. Occupational Negligence Causing Death, Daeryun's Strategy
1. Occupational Negligence Causing Death, a Case in Which the Establishment of Joint Principal Offenders Was at Issue in Connection With the Humidifier Disinfectant Case
This was a case in which the issue was whether the defendants, who were indicted on charges of occupational negligence causing death and occupational negligence causing injury, constituted joint principal offenders.
In this case, the defendants were charged on the ground that, in the course of manufacturing and selling humidifier disinfectants, they neglected safety testing and thereby caused death or injury to the victims.
The defendants manufactured and sold humidifier disinfectants that used CMIT/MIT as the main ingredients, and they were prosecuted on charges including occupational negligence causing death on the ground that they did not clearly verify safety testing and thereby caused harm to human life.
Among the users of the humidifier disinfectants they sold, 98 persons suffered from lung disease, asthma, and similar conditions, and 12 of them died.
The defendants in the related case manufactured and sold humidifier disinfectants that used a different ingredient, PHMG, and it was claimed that their conduct also contributed to the occurrence of the harm.
Occupational Negligence Causing Death, the Determinations of the First and Second Instances
In the first instance of this occupational negligence causing death case, all of the defendants were acquitted.
This was because the court found it difficult to conclude that it had been proven that CMIT and MIT cause lung disease and asthma.
The first-instance court stated that "there is no evidence to recognize a causal relationship between the use of CMIT and MIT humidifier disinfectants and the occurrence or aggravation of lung disease and asthma."
In the second instance of this occupational negligence causing death case, the court reversed this and rendered a conviction, recognizing the causation that the harm had occurred as a result of the defendants' occupational negligence.
The court determined that, in modern industrial society, it is foreseeable that multiple manufacturers will produce similar products and that consumers will use them in combination, and that a common duty of care is therefore imposed on all of the manufacturers.
The court took the view that, if the victims' harm to health resulted from a combination of defects in multiple products, joint principal offenders could be recognized even in the absence of explicit cooperation among the manufacturers.
The court also took into account the fact that the ingredient information of the humidifier disinfectants was not clearly disclosed to consumers, making it difficult for consumers to purchase the products with knowledge of the differences in the main ingredients.
The second-instance court further stated that "there are scientific studies supporting a general causal relationship between the CMIT and MIT ingredients and lung disease and asthma," and explained that "the defendants not only failed to perform the safety testing that should have been conducted before releasing the products, but also failed to perform the monitoring duty required after the products were released, thereby expanding the harm."
2. Occupational Negligence Causing Death, the Supreme Court's Determination on Whether Joint Principal Offenders Were Established
In this occupational negligence causing death case, the Supreme Court's determination once again reversed the judgment of the lower court.
The Supreme Court stated that "no circumstances can be found to recognize that the defendants in this occupational negligence causing death case were aware that the defendants in the related case were developing and releasing humidifier disinfectants, or that they communicated their intentions to one another in that regard."
The court determined that, because the main ingredients and development processes of the products were entirely different and the parties did not mutually recognize the possibility that defects in the products would accumulate, a relationship of joint principal offenders could not be recognized.
The Supreme Court stated that, under the lower court's reasoning, there would be a strong likelihood that the manufacturers of all mass-produced and mass-consumed goods in modern society would bear liability as joint principal offenders in a negligent offense even for products they had independently developed, and the court took the view that this would be unjustified because it could result in the unlimited expansion of the scope of liability among manufacturers.
3. Occupational Negligence Causing Death, Daeryun's Strategy
This was a case in which whether joint principal offenders in occupational negligence causing death were established was at issue.
In a case of occupational negligence causing death, a specific determination is required as to whether there is a proximate causal relationship between the breach of the duty of care and the death or injury of the victims.
The 🔗attorneys handling corporate matters at Daeryun Law Firm LLP, drawing on litigation data reflecting a thorough understanding of and experience in criminal law, clearly identify the legal principles governing the requirements for establishing joint principal offenders in a negligent offense and proceed with response strategies accordingly.
