Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.12673/jant.2017.21.3.230

Historical Review for the Government Contractor Defense  

Shin, Sung-hwan (Advanced Tech Law Institute, Law Firm KS & Partners)
Publication Information
Journal of Advanced Navigation Technology / v.21, no.3, 2017 , pp. 230-242 More about this Journal
Abstract
A significant rise in product-liability cost is expected due to the newly passed product liability amendment Bill approved during the assembly plenary session on March 30, 2017. Korean government legal service(KGLS) filed a damage suit against Korea aerospace industries, Ltd.(KAI) and Hanwha Techwin Co., Ltd., the manufactures of the KUH-1 Surion helicopter crashed. KGLS alleged claims under the product liability Act, the warrant liability Act and the non-performance of contract act. The accountability limits of military aircraft manufacturers was a highly divisive issue among related scholars and legal practitioners. The bottom line was that military aircraft manufacturers had no product-liability insurance available. The United States courts have, therefore, developed the government contractor defense(GCD) and it was recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court in Boyle v. United Technologies corporation(1988). product liability insurances for military aircraft manufacturers are excessively expensive and it cannot be added onto the military procurement cost accounting. However, having an aircraft accident without one can be ruinously expensive. Therefore, the manufacturers should promptly set up appropriate risk management measures. This thesis will first review the advance GCD theory, and then find a way to either reform government contract related regulations.
Keywords
Government contractor defense; Product liability; Boyle case; FTCA; Military aircraft manufacturer;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 Stencel Aero Eng'g Corp v. United States, 431 U.S. 666, 672-3, 1977.
2 R. Todd Johnson, "Comment, In Defense of the Government Contractor Defense", 36 Cath. U.L. Rev., p. 227, 1987.
3 In re "Agent Orange" Product Liability Litigation, 506 F. Supp. 750, 820-2, 828-33, 843, 868 (E.D.N.Y., Eastern District of New York, United States District Court, 1980.
4 In re "Agent Orange" Product Liability Litigation 534 F. Supp. (Federal Supplement) at 1055.
5 American Law Institute, Restatement (Second) of Tort $\S$ 338 (1965).
6 American Law Institute, Restatement (Second) of Tort $\S$ 339 (1965).
7 American Law Institute, Restatement (Second) of Tort $\S$ 402A (1965).
8 McKay v. Rockwell Intern. Corp., 704 F.2d 444, 446 (9th Cir.), 1983.
9 Boyle v. United Technologies Corp., 487 US 500, 503 ,1988.
10 Geier v. Am. Honda Motor Co., 529 U.S. 861, 894, 2000.
11 Tozer v. LTV Corp., 792 F.2d at 408, 1986.
12 Sanner v. Ford Motor Co. 144 N.J. Super.1, 6, 9 , 1976.
13 Richard C. Ausness, "Danger Is My Business: The Right to Manufacture Unsafe Products," 67 Ark. L. Rev. p. 846, 2014.
14 Boyle, 487 US at 512, 1988.
15 Trevino v. General Dynamics Corp. 865 F.2d 1418, 1474 ,1989.
16 Charles E. Cantu & Randy W. Young, "The Government Contractor Defense: Breaking the Boyle Barrier," 62 ALB. L. Rev., p.435, 1998.
17 Lewis v. Babcock Indus., Inc., 985 F.2d 83, 87 (2nd Cir.), 1993.
18 Yearsley v. W.A. Ross Construction Co., 309 U.S. 18, 19-20, 1940.
19 Gonzalez, Eric M., "The Government contractor defense: Defending boyle's analysis and extending it beyond the realm of military procurement contracts," Law School Student Scholarship, p. 2, 2014.
20 Kateryna Rakowsky, "The Government Contractor Defense & Its Impact on Litigation Against Military Contractors," The Military Law Taskforce . p. 3, 2005.
21 28 United States Code, $\S$ 2680(a), US Code of Federal Regulations.
22 Dolphin Gardens, Inc. v. United States, 243 F. Supp. 824, 827 (D. Conn.), 1965.
23 Littlehale, v. EI Du Pont De Nemours & Co., 268 F. Supp. 791 (S.D.N.Y. Southern District of New York), 1966.
24 28 United States Code Annotated, § 1346(b)(1), US Code of Federal Regulations.
25 Feres v. United States, 340 U.S. 137, 142-4, 1950.
26 Gary Kase, et al. v. Metalclad Insulation Corp., No. A143590, 855, 861-2 (Calif. App., 1st Dist.), 2016.
27 Snell v. Bell Helicopter Textron, 107 F.3d 744, 746 (9th Cir.), 1997.
28 National Assembly Information System : Product Liability Act Partly Revised Draft, National Assembly : No. 350 [2006505], 2017.
29 Korean government legal service : Claim for damages for the Surion Helicopter accident , Seoul District Court : 2017KaHap517214, 2017.
30 Murray's Lessee v. Hoboken Land & Improvement Co. 59 U.S. 272, 283, 1856.
31 Mary Carley v. Wheeled Coach, 991 F.2d 1117 (3rd Cir. ), 1993.
32 Glassco v. Miller Equipment Co., Inc., 966 F.2d 641, 643-44 (11th Cir. ), 1992.
33 Hanover Insurance Group, "Government Contractor Defense," Hanover Risk Solutions, p. 3, 2014.
34 Harduvel v. General Dynamics Corp., 878 F.2d 1311, 1317-18 (11th Cir.), 1989.
35 McGonigal v. Gearhart Industries, Inc., 851 F.2d 774, 777 (5th Cir.), 1988.
36 Getz v. Boeing Co., 654 F.3d 852 (9th Cir.), 2011.
37 Tate v. Boeing Helicopters, 921 F. Supp. 1562 (W.D. Ky.) , 1996.
38 In Re Joint E. S. Dist. N.Y. Asbestos Lit.: 897 F.2d 626-30 (2d Cir.), 1990.
39 Crawford v. National Lead Co., 784 F. Supp. 439, 445-46, n. 7 (S.D. Oh), 1989.
40 Lamb v. Martin Marietta Energy Systems, Inc. 835 F. Supp. 959 (W.D. Ky.), 1993.
41 Gray v. Lockheed Aeronautical Systems Co. 880 F. Supp. 1559, 1566-7 (N.D. Ga.), 1995.
42 Spaulding v. Monsanto Co., 2011 WL 4482917 (S.d.n.y.), 2011.
43 Defense Acquisition Program Administration, Established Rule No.345, 2016.12.8.
44 Korean Civil Law Act.575 para.1 [Seller's Liability]
45 Seoul High Court, Sentence 2002Na32662, 2006.
46 The Amiable Nancy, 16 U.S. 3 Wheat. 546, 1818.