1. Case Summary and Key Issues
The clients are employees of the Elevator Team at XX Construction Office under the Metropolitan Headquarters of Korea Railroad Corporation (KORAIL) (Team leader: Client 1, Deputy: Client 2). At the time of the reverse-running escalator accident at XX Station on June 8, 2023 (12 people injured), they were in charge of maintenance, improvement, safety inspection, and construction supervision of elevators and other related facilities at the station and were the managing entities for the escalator under the Elevator Safety Management Act.
XX Construction Office had entrusted the inspection, repair, and maintenance of the elevators to a private contractor, and had the contractor perform the self-inspection of the escalators required at least once a month under the Elevator Safety Management Act. Meanwhile, Client 2, an employee of the Elevator Team at XX Construction Office, supervised the monthly safety inspection conducted by the contractor under the instructions of Client 1.
While inspecting the escalator during the regular safety check in April 2023, the contractor's employee judged that a part of the auxiliary brake needed replacement and temporarily tied it with a cable tie without reporting it to the Elevator Team. The contractor falsely marked the escalator as "normal" in the inspection report and did not replace the part.
As a result, on June 8, 2023, the escalator reversed due to the weight of passengers, and the auxiliary brake failed to operate properly, causing passengers to fall and pile up, resulting in injuries to 12 people.
The Railway Police of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, and Transport (MOLIT) considered that Client 1 had failed to ensure that Client 2 attended the May regular inspection by assigning him to other tasks, and that Client 2, during the April inspection, failed to properly supervise and thus did not discover the cable tie. They deemed these actions to constitute negligence and referred both clients to the prosecution.
2. Our Arguments
We argued that there was no regulation stating that the construction office staff must attend the contractor's regular inspections, and the service contract and scope of work document included instructions for cases where on-site attendance by the managing entity (the Construction Office) was not possible. We further argued that in KORAIL's "Comprehensive Elevator Safety Management Plan" prepared prior to the incident, it was stated that the on-site attendance rate was about 60%, which demonstrated that attendance was not mandatory.
We also argued that since the employees of the Elevator Team at the Construction Office did not possess specific technical licenses or expertise, it was unreasonable to expect them to supervise at the same professional level as the contractor's inspectors.
Given the large number of elevators and escalators subject to inspection, there was no reason to inspect this particular escalator with special attention, and it was difficult to expect the clients to detect the contractor's false report and input.
The prosecution accepted all these arguments and ruled that simply not attending the inspection or staying until the end of it was not enough to constitute a lack of supervision, and therefore issued a "no charges" decision.
3. Outcome and Significance
Under relevant laws, the clients were the managing entities of the escalator, and the accident resulted in injuries to 12 users, so the likelihood of occupational negligence being recognized was high.
However, we were able to argue that the clients were not technical experts and had delegated the management to a contractor, that there was no legal obligation for on-site attendance, and that the incident was primarily the fault of the inspection contractor. As a result, it was concluded that the clients were not guilty of occupational negligence, and a "no charges" decision was successfully secured.
