Worker Dies in Fall Accident at Construction Site... Primary Contractor Also Liable for Damages

Seoul Central District Court Rules "Joint Payment with Subcontractors"

On the 1st, a worker wipes sweat at a construction site in Gaepo-dong, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, where extreme heatwaves close to 40 degrees Celsius are raging, mainly in the central inland region. Photo by Mun Ho-nam munonam@

[Asia Economy Reporter Seongpil Jo] A worker who became paralyzed from the waist down due to a fall accident at a construction site won a lawsuit holding not only the subcontractor, the actual employer, but also the primary contractor liable for damages related to the work-related injury.

According to the legal community on the 8th, Judge Na Woo-sang of the Civil Division 67 at the Seoul Central District Court ruled partially in favor of Cho, who worked at rebar and concrete construction company A, in a damages claim lawsuit filed against company A and the primary contractor B. The court ordered, "The defendants shall jointly pay approximately 364.8 million KRW, excluding the amount already paid by the Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Service."

In May 2017, Cho fell about 4 meters to the ground while performing the task of detaching a lifting ring from the formwork at a new commercial building construction site in Seocho-gu, Seoul. As a result of the accident, Cho suffered severe injuries causing paralysis of the lower limbs. At the time, no safety harness attachment equipment to prevent falls was installed at the site. Although Cho received approximately 43 million KRW in industrial accident medical care from the Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Service, no compensation was paid by the employer. The site manager of company A and employees of company B were criminally prosecuted for professional negligence causing injury, and their employers, companies A and B, were found guilty of violating the Industrial Safety and Health Act. Consequently, Cho filed a lawsuit seeking over 800 million KRW in damages from both companies.

The court recognized the liability of companies A and B for compensation. Company B argued during the trial that, as the contractor, it bore no responsibility for the accident; however, the court rejected this claim, citing the former Industrial Safety and Health Act, stating that the defendants neglected measures to prevent industrial accidents, such as installing safety and health facilities. The court, however, found that Cho was also partly at fault for the accident and limited the companies' liability to 80%.

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.