Occupational Negligence Causing Death | The Humidifier Disinfectant Case, the Supreme Court's Judgment on the Establishment of Joint Principal Offenders

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.

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.

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.