DistantNews
Support us
๐Ÿ‡น๐Ÿ‡ผ Taiwan /Health & Science

Solar installation sparks factory fire, but Tainan biotech company loses NT$47.7 million lawsuit

From Liberty Times · () Chinese

Translated from Chinese and summarized by DistantNews. Read the original for the full story.

At a glance

News Documents & data In the courts
  • A Tainan biotech company sought NT$47,719,192 from a solar-project tenant and contractors after welding sparks allegedly caused a fire that destroyed its factory and inventory.
  • The Tainan District Court ruled that the property owner was not responsible for an independent contractorโ€™s negligence and dismissed the claim in full.
  • The case can be appealed.

A Tainan biotech company has lost a NT$47,719,192 claim after a fire allegedly started by welding sparks during the installation of rooftop solar equipment.

The company said it had rented out its roof to a solar-energy operator, which hired a primary contractor that then passed the work through several layers of subcontracting. While workers installed a guardrail, a small subcontractor allegedly failed to take fire-prevention measures. Welding sparks fell into a second-floor warehouse, setting fire to the factory, machinery and large quantities of inventory. The flames also spread to neighboring properties.

After deducting compensation already paid by the worker blamed for the incident, the biotech company sought joint damages from the tenant and contractors at every level. The tenant argued that it had no authority to supervise construction details after awarding the work and should not bear responsibility for a contractorโ€™s negligence. It also said the fire began in the warehouse, not on the rented roof.

The primary and other subcontractors said the workers were not their direct employees and operated as independent contractors. One defendant, a construction-business owner, told the court that a small subcontractor had used his name without permission to take the job and sign the contract. He said he knew nothing about it and had never visited the site.

The Tainan District Court found that the contract had indeed been signed under the ownerโ€™s name without authorization. The judge said a property owner is not liable for a contractorโ€™s tort unless the owner gave faulty instructions. The company failed to prove that the tenant or primary contractor had issued improper instructions. Although the fire resulted from worker negligence, the court found it did not reach the level of gross negligence that would remove the tenantโ€™s legal protection, and rejected the entire claim. The ruling may be appealed.

I knew nothing about it and had never visited the construction site.

· Owner of a construction business named as a defendantHe denied authorizing a subcontractor to use his name to secure and sign the project contract.
About this summary

Originally published by Liberty Times in Chinese. Translated, summarized, and contextualized automatically by DistantNews, with a note on how the source frames the story. Not individually reviewed before publishing. How this works.