‘Gwangyang Port Crane Accident’... Supreme Court Rules CJ Logistics and Chinese Company Must Compensate Separately

[Asia Economy Reporter Heo Kyung-jun] The Supreme Court has ruled that both the Chinese company that manufactured the crane and CJ Logistics (formerly Daehan Logistics), which operated it, are responsible for the crane collapse accident at Gwangyang Port in Jeollanam-do and must each pay damages.

The Supreme Court's First Division (Presiding Justice Noh Tae-ak) announced on the 28th that it upheld the appellate court's ruling, which partially favored the Yeosu Gwangyang Port Authority in a damages lawsuit against Chinese manufacturer Company A and Korean logistics company Company B.

In October 2007, the boom (the arm part of the crane that lifts cargo) of a crane collapsed at Gwangyang Port in Jeollanam-do. As a result of the wire rope snapping, the boom fell to the ground, damaging a Danish shipping company's vessel and cargo docked at the pier.

The port authority filed a damages lawsuit, claiming that the accident was caused by manufacturing defects of Company A, which made the crane, and negligence by Company B, which rented and operated the crane from the port authority.

Company A and Company B are in a 'quasi-joint liability' relationship, meaning that either party can compensate the port authority for the damages. The crane collapse was due to both the defective product made by Company A and the inadequate inspection by Company B. In this case, the plaintiff port authority can receive compensation from either Company A or Company B, both of whom contributed to the cause.

The first trial court assigned an equal 80% fault ratio to both Company A and Company B, holding them jointly liable. In contrast, the appellate court assigned 100% responsibility to Company A and 70% to Company B, setting different proportions of tort liability.

The Supreme Court agreed with the appellate court's decision. The bench stated, "There are cases where quasi-joint liability is recognized without the reason of joint tortious acts. In such cases, when apportioning fault, it is not necessary to evaluate the plaintiff's fault collectively against all debtors; rather, individual circumstances of each debtor can be considered to set different responsibility limitation ratios or fault compensation ratios."

Furthermore, the court ruled, "In damage compensation cases, determining the facts regarding fault compensation or responsibility limitation to ensure fairness in damage burden, or setting the ratio thereof, falls within the full discretion of the trial courts (first and second instance), unless it is recognized as manifestly unreasonable in light of the principle of equity."

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