Lawsuit: Pipeline explosion at Holland LG plant leaves visiting contractor with serious injuries

HOLLAND — What began as a routine supervisory visit for a South Korean construction contractor at the sprawling LG Energy Solution manufacturing plant in Holland ended in an industrial explosion, leaving a man with catastrophic brain and facial injuries, according to a civil lawsuit in Ottawa County.

The complaint, filed Oct. 13 in Ottawa County Circuit Court, reveals the moments preceding a pipeline rupture on the afternoon of Sept. 23. The legal filing accuses LG Energy Solution Michigan Inc. and two of its designated site foremen of gross negligence and premises liability, detailing a failure in fundamental industrial safety protocols that forever altered the life of the visiting contractor, his wife and their young son.

At the center of the litigation is Dong-won Park, a South Korean citizen who was temporarily residing and conducting business in Ottawa County. Park worked for IBG Construction Inc., an international firm based in Korea. According to court documents, he was dispatched by LG to the U.S. on Aug. 1.

Operating under a B-1 business visa, Park’s permissible activities on American soil were explicitly restricted. The complaint outlines that the purpose of his visit was “strictly limited to business meetings, technical consultations, project coordination, engineering reviews and supervisory activities related to ongoing projects.”

Under his visa, Park was prohibited from engaging in any productive physical labor or direct employment activities within the U.S. and was not receiving compensation from LG or any other U.S. entity; all of his travel, accommodations and daily expenses were fully covered by his employer, IBG Construction.

For weeks, Park safely operated within these strict parameters, according to the complaint; however, on the afternoon of Sept. 23, the timeline for a critical infrastructure project rapidly accelerated, setting the stage for the incident in dispute.

According to the lawsuit, piping modifications on a section of the facility known as “Line 4” were scheduled for completion that day. Subin Kim, a supervisor for LG, allegedly requested the immediate completion of the work that afternoon to finalize the modifications and conduct subsequent leak checks.

To execute the hands-on labor, Kim summoned site foremen Ming-Guk Jeong and Tae-Jun Im — both of whom reside in Ottawa County and are named as individual defendants in the civil action.

The physical mechanics of the requested leak check were highly sensitive and carried inherent, known dangers. The lawsuit provides an explanation of the facility's rigid safety protocols: conducting a leak check or a filter replacement on this specific pipeline required three distinct valves to be fully opened simultaneously.

This procedure is designed to distribute the immense water pressure evenly throughout the system. The court filing notes a warning inherent to the system’s design: "If any inner valve remained closed, pressure would become trapped inside the line, leading to catastrophic results including an explosion."

As the two foremen prepared the line, Park was fulfilling his authorized supervisory and consultative role. The complaint paints a harrowing picture of a man simply doing his job as an observer. Park was standing in the vicinity, engaged in conversation with supervisor Kim, watching as Jeong and Im allegedly manipulated the water and pressure valves on the pipeline.

Then, the system failed.

Because of what the plaintiffs allege was improper and negligent valve manipulation by the LG foremen, a massive buildup of trapped pressure caused the pipeline to rupture. The resulting explosion was described in the complaint as "sudden and violent." Because of his proximity to the blast, Park absorbed the catastrophic kinetic force of the explosion directly.

The medical aftermath detailed in the lawsuit is grim. Park suffered injuries that the filing describes as permanently disabling and profoundly disfiguring. The primary trauma includes a severe traumatic brain injury, which often carries lifelong cognitive, motor and psychological implications. Additionally, the force of the blast shattered his face, resulting in severe facial fractures and significant, disfiguring injuries to his jaw and mouth.

The lawsuit, spearheaded by Michigan trial attorneys Ven R. Johnson and former Michigan Court of Appeals judge Christopher P. Yates of the Kalamazoo-based Ven Johnson Law PLC, structures its legal attack across three primary counts. The plaintiffs have demanded a jury trial before Ottawa County Circuit Court Judge Karen J. Miedema and are seeking exemplary and compensatory damages well in excess of the statutory $75,000 threshold required for this circuit court jurisdiction.

Count I of the complaint focuses on premises liability, targeting LG directly as the property owner and operator. Under Michigan law, property owners owe the highest duty of care to a "business invitee" — a legal classification that undoubtedly applies to Park, who was invited onto the premises for the commercial benefit of LGES. The lawsuit argues that LGES had a non-negotiable duty to create and maintain reasonably safe conditions, to proactively eliminate anticipated hazards, and to explicitly warn Park of any known dangers.

The plaintiff alleges that LG breached these duties, failing to exercise "ordinary care" by directing the performance of inherently dangerous work without adequate safeguards. Furthermore, the suit claims that LG, through the direct actions of its own employees, caused the buildup of a dangerous level of pressure, directly triggering the explosion.

Count II broadens the legal scope, levying allegations of direct negligence against all three defendants: LG, Jeong and Im. The lawsuit argues that the two foremen owed a fundamental duty to perform the Line 4 pipe project in a manner that did not create an unreasonable risk of harm to Park or any other bystanders present on the floor. By allegedly failing to open the required valves and trapping the water pressure, the foremen breached that duty.

Crucially for the plaintiffs’ strategy, the lawsuit invokes the doctrine of vicarious liability, asserting that LGES is legally responsible for the negligent actions committed by its employees while they were operating within the scope of their employment. This dual-pronged approach ensures that the corporate entity is held liable both as a negligent property owner and as the employer of the individuals who allegedly caused the blast.

The damages sought by Park under these first two counts are extensive, reflecting the permanent alteration of his life. The plaintiffs are seeking financial restitution for past, present, and future physical pain and suffering, mental anguish and fright and shock.

The filing also highlights the deep psychological toll of his severe facial disfigurement, demanding compensation for embarrassment, humiliation, and mortification, as well as the denial of social pleasures and enjoyments. Financially, the suit seeks to recover astronomical ongoing medical treatment expenses, compensation for past wage loss and damages for a permanent reduction in Park’s future earning capacity.

However, the fallout of the Sept. 23 explosion was not limited to the physical boundaries of the Holland plant, nor was its impact confined solely to Park. The ripple effects extend into the family unit, a reality reflected in Count III of the complaint: Loss of consortium, otherwise known as "loss of companionship, affection, love and sexual relations."

The final count was brought forward by Park’s wife, Junghee Han, who is suing on her own behalf and acting as the "next friend" — a legal representative — for their minor child, Joon Seo Park. Both Han and her son are citizens of South Korea whose lives have been upended by the sudden incapacitation of their husband and father, according to the complaint.

In civil litigation, a loss of consortium claim recognizes that when a person is catastrophically injured, their immediate family suffers a profound, legally compensable loss. The complaint articulates that because of the negligence of LG and its foremen, Han and her son have been entirely deprived of the reasonable value of Park’s services, as well as the indispensable society, companionship and affection that they have lost.

The family is also seeking to recover the reasonable expenses of the medical care Park has required, shifting the immense financial burden of his lifelong recovery onto the corporate defendants.

LG has until Nov. 3 to file a formal answer to the complaint.

— Sarah Leach is the executive editor of the Ottawa News Network. Contact her at sleach@ottawanewsnetwork.org. Follow her on Twitter @ONNLeach.