眾律國際法律事務所/眾律國際專利商標事務所

 -    Are the plaintiffs’ requests valid in that they may trigger several compensations?

 -    Shall defendant RCA be held responsible to compensate the plaintiffs under article 227-1 of the Civil Code?

 -    Shall defendant RCA be held responsible to compensate the plaintiffs under article 7 of Labour Law?

 -    Did RCA violated article 487-1 of the Civil Code? If the Court lifts the corporate veil, will defendants Technicolor, Technicolor USA, Inc., Thomson Consumer Electronics (Bermuda) Ltd., GE, be held responsible for the said damages?

                                                The Court’s decision

                                                                                Liability under Tort Law

 Defendants violated articles 184 and 185 of the Civil Code. It is therefore their responsibility, under the said articles, to repair the resulting damages.

 RCA is held responsible for compensation under article 184 of the Civil Code.

From June 1975 to May 1991, Taiwan industry and mining inspection and the Taiwan Provincial Government found out RCA used 9 kinds of organic solvents. During this period, RCA repeatedly constituted infringement to article 184 of the Civil Code by violating “organic solvent poisoning prevention rules”, “labor safety and sanitation rules”, “lead poisoning prevention rules”, running water regulations and other protection rules.  

Defendant RCA let escape in the soil of its plant in Taoyuan an excessive amount of organic solvents reaching up to 110 times the benchmark regulation: the defendant company RCA let escape several organic solvents in the underground water, a part of it content so many OVCs[2] that it reaches up to many thousand times the benchmark regulation.

Witnesses, former employees of RCA defendant, alleged RCA caused serious air pollution during its operation period and that they were in direct exposure to organic solvents as they did not take protective measures. 

The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), divided the substances into 5 categories according to their carcinogenicity:

-     Group 1: definitely carcinogenic to humans

-     Group 2A: probably carcinogenic to humans

-     Group 2B: possibly carcinogenic to humans

-     Group 3: not classifiable as to its carcinogenicity to humans

-     Group 4: probably not carcinogenic to humans 

                                                                             Determination mode of the causal link

 In a damage compensation case for pollution by organic solvents, trying to determine causation is very difficult, mainly because it requires a causal link that differs from public hazard.

The Japanese doctrine when it is difficult to determine the cause of the nuisance is to establish a probabilistic theory of causation and pick the preponderant evidence.

Other opinions in public nuisance cases are, when it is hard to offer evidence of the causal link and without rigorous scientific inspection certificate, the evidence of the causal link will be considered as sufficient if: “without the act, the result would not have occurred”. 

Factors of occurrence of certain diseases are immunologically tested, using statistical method of “reasonable probability”, which does not affect the judgment if it is not carried out through rigorous scientific experiments. The United States use another standard: “increasing the risk of morbidity” to prove the causal link, i.e. to prove that the defendant’s behavior caused the plaintiff damage within a “reasonable medical certainty”. 

According to the testimonies and to experts, and using the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) methods to determine the causal link, it is now established that the employees and their families long-term damages were caused by an exposure to organic solvents.  

Relying on epidemiological studies, International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified trichloroethylene in the 3^rd category of carcinogens in 1987, reclassified it in category 2A in 1995 before reclassifying it in category 1 in 2012. RCA used this organic solvent, considered by IARC and U.S. EPA as causing the diseases the employees and their families are complaining of. The immunological causal relationship between the said organic solvent and the said damages is thus established.

The employees and their families’ health damages were due to repeated violations by the defendant RCA of “organic solvent poisoning prevention rules”, “labor safety and sanitation rules”, “lead poisoning prevention rules”, running water regulations and other protection rules. The fact that the employees worked while being overexposed to the said substances for a long time period is enough to prove a general causal relationship exists.

                                                                                          The burden of proof

The defendant RCA did not lawfully used organic solvents and save records to protect the health of its employees, the burden of proof should thus be reversed, it is not on the plaintiffs anymore and is borne by the defendants. If the defendant does not provide evidence, it will benefit the plaintiffs. There is no need to mention again the plaintiffs were exposed to organic solvents during their work.

                                                                                               Compensation

Class A, the workers whose cancers have been caused by an exposure to trichlorethylene, tetrachlorethylene, trichloroethane, methylene chloride, etc. and triggered their deaths according to IARC and U.S. EPA (c.f. Schedule 3) have the said causal relationship recognized, their heirs shall be compensate with no other reason, according to article 194 of the Civil Code.

Classes B and C, the workers suffering from cancers and others diseases caused by an exposure to trichlorethylene, tetrachlorethylene, trichloroethane, methylene chloride, etc. according to IARC and U.S. EPA (c.f. Schedule 3) have the said causal relationship recognized and shall be compensate with no other reason, according to article 195 of the Civil Code; according to the probability theory, as the probability of cancer and other diseases have increased when exposure to substances identified as in Group 1 increased, the causal link is thus recognized.

Concerning the workers who do not fall into any of the said categories,who were exposed to trichlorethylene, tetrachlorethylene, trichloroethane, methylenechloride, etc. and have developed specific cancers and other health damages not related to the prolonged exposure of the said substances, especially of trichloroethylene, according to IARC and U.S. EPA and whose clinical symptoms are currently appearing, they are considered as ordinary people whose health is uninjured.

                                                                                                    Liability

The Court lifts the corporate veil and declares defendants Technicolor, Thomson Consumer Electronics (Bermuda) Ltd., Technicolor USA, Inc., GE and RCA jointly and severally liable under Tort Law.

Defendants Technicolor, Technicolor USA Inc., Thomson Consumer Electronics (Bermuda) Ltd., and GE are jointly liable with RCA for compensation under article 185 of the Civil Code. 

                                                                                             RCA’s insolvency

 RCA defendant between July 1998 and January 1999 remitted its capital amount of 3.2 billion Taiwan dollars to French banks, making it unable to assume its debts and constituting an abuse under article 154 paragraph 2 of the Companies Act. There is no doubt RCA defendant organized its own insolvency in order to escape from its debt liability. 

        Company Act

       Art 154: The liability of shareholders to the company shall, unless otherwise provided in the paragraph 2, be limited to payment in full of the shares they have subscribed.
       If a shareholder abuses the company’s status as a legal entity and thus causes the company to bear specific debts and to be apparently difficult for the company to pay such debts, and if such abuse is of a severe        nature, the shareholder shall, if necessary, be liable for the debts.

       Code of Civil Procedure