The story revolves around a man in his early 50s, an employee of a print processing company. On one unfortunate day, he received a request from Mr. A, a colleague who runs a delivery business in the vicinity, “to move a photocopier together and share the payment.”
During the transfer from the second floor to the first, he lost balance, fell back, and significantly hit the back of his head on the first floor. At the same time, Mr. A dropped the photocopier he was holding, causing a severe impact on the lower body of the man.
Despite urgent medical care by emergency services, he passed away due to an acute subdural hemorrhage caused by trauma.
The plaintiff’s Claim and Legal Grounds
Faced with the sudden passing of her husband, the deceased’s wife, the plaintiff, proceeded with a compensation lawsuit against Mr. A, the defendant. The lawsuit was for damages caused by the aforementioned accident.
The provision of the Korean Civil Act that form the basis of this claim are as follows:
Article 750 (Definition of Torts)
Any person who causes losses to or inflicts injuries on another person by an unlawful act, intentionally or negligently, shall be bound to make compensation for damages arising therefrom.
According to this provision, the following conditions must be met for a tort to be established under Korean civil law:
- 고의 또는 과실: The perpetrator’s intention or negligence
- 위법행위: The perpetrator’s unlawful act (if the act is not unlawful, a tort cannot be established)
- 타인에게 손해: Causing losses or inflicting injuries on another person
- 인과관계: Causal relationship between the unlawful act and another person’s losses or injury
“Negligence (과실)” refers to a mental state in which, if the required level of care had been exercised in social life, the occurrence of a certain result could have been foreseen or avoided, but such care was not exercised, thereby causing the result to occur.
In this case, Mr. A, the defendant, did not provide any precautions to the deceased when he asked him to transport the photocopier. He didn’t inform him about the weight of the photocopier or the narrow and steep width of the stairs they had to descend. If Mr. A had had the deceased lift the photocopier on a flat surface to get a feel for its weight before transporting it, inspected the stairs for dangerous spots or obstacles, and then carefully and safely directed the work for the deceased, who had to walk backward, the deceased’s fall could have been prevented.
However, because there were no clear instructions or prior discussions, Mr. A was also startled when the deceased suddenly fell. He dropped the photocopier, which then hit the deceased’s lower body, worsening the situation.
Mr. A, the defendant, may be found negligent for the following reasons:
- Failure to provide sufficient explanation regarding the weight of the copier and the dangers of the stairs.
- Failure to provide instructions on safe transportation methods.
- Failure to take appropriate safety measures in a dangerous work environment.
In this regard, Korean courts have recognized that violations of safety measures at work sites can be grounds for damages. The Seoul Central District Court ruled, “The defendant neglected its duty of care to the plaintiff, which is acknowledged to have caused the accident in question. Therefore, the defendant is liable for compensating the plaintiff for the damage suffered as a result of the accident.” (Seoul Central District Court Decision 2022Na57499, April 25, 2023)
However, Mr. A refuted the claim, attributing the accident solely to the deceased’s own negligence. In addition, the deceased’s employer, who was close to Mr. A in reality, showed a non-cooperative attitude toward the incident.
As a result of the trial, the court accepted the plaintiff’s argument and recognized Mr. A’s negligence. However, it recognized only 70% of the negligence, not 100%. The reason for this will be explained in the next chapter.
Contributory Negligence
Korean Civil Act contains the following provision.
Article 396 (Contributory Negligence)
If there has been any negligence on the part of the obligee in regard to the non-performance of the obligation, the court shall take it into account in determining the liability for and assessing the amount of the damages.
This “contributory negligence (과실상계)” rule also applies to torts and damages. If a victim is partly responsible for damages, the court shall take such fact into consideration in determining the liability and the scope of compensation for the damages. The same shall apply where natural disaster or other unavoidable causes concurrently contribute to the occurrence of the damages.
In this regard, looking at Korean precedents, there is an example where the Ulsan District Court ruled, “the plaintiff, while working in a location where there was a risk of falling, failed to fulfill their duty of care by not taking into account the possibility of falling and thereby neglecting to ensure their own safety, so the defendant’s liability is limited to 70%.” (Ulsan District Court Decision 2020GaDan124760, September 30, 2022)
In this case, the court applied the same criteria as in the above precedent and ruled that Mr. A was 70% liable for the damages incurred by the deceased. Thus, the court ordered Mr. A to pay a total of 115 million KRW to the deceased’s wife as damage compensation.
The Aftermath
While monetary compensation cannot fully alleviate the grief of the bereaved family, the court partially acknowledged the position of the deceased and his family and rendered a judgment for damages.
This case illustrates that, in compensation claims arising from accidents, factors such as the circumstances of the incident, the work environment, and the duty to provide adequate explanation can serve as key elements in the court’s decision. It also highlights the importance of securing relevant evidence and understanding how damages are assessed—factors that may significantly influence the outcome of a compensation lawsuit, especially with the guidance of legal professionals.