• Title/Summary/Keyword: 미국 제조물책임법

Search Result 20, Processing Time 0.027 seconds

제조물책임법(製造物責任法) 도입(導入)의 경제적(經濟的) 효과(效果)와 입법방향(立法方向)

  • Sin, Gwang-Sik;Gu, Bon-Cheon
    • KDI Journal of Economic Policy
    • /
    • v.18 no.3_4
    • /
    • pp.3-61
    • /
    • 1996
  • 소비자 보호 및 효율적 자원배분, 기업의 안전증진 유인제공, 제도의 국제적 조화를 위하여 제조물책임법(製造物責任法) 제정의 필요성이 제기되고 있다. 현재 제조물로 인한 사고는 민법(民法)에 의하여 보상받고 있으나 그 입증책임이 과중하고, 현재 우리나라 생산물배상책임보험(生産物賠償責任保險)이 전체 손해보험에서 차지하는 비중은 0.1%에 불과(미국 10%)하여 그 비용이 아직 미미하므로 제조물책임법제(製造物責任法制) 도입의 안전증진효과가 경제적 손실보다 클 것으로 예상된다. 법제정시의 기본방향은 소비자에게 단순히 보상을 제공하는 법제가 아닌, 기업의 책임과 제품결함이 밀접히 연관되어 배상(賠償) 및 사고억제(事故抑制)의 유인과 효과를 극대화하는 것이어야 한다. 추정규정의 도입은 소비자(消費者) 피해구제(被害救濟)를 용이하게 하지만, 디자인 및 경고결함(警告缺陷)과 결합되면 제조자가 제품사고의 모든 가능성에 대해 완벽한 정보를 가지지 않는 한 제조자의 책임이 되어 제조물책임(製造物責任)의 불확실성(不確實性)을 높이고, 결과적으로 기업에게 절대책임(絶對責任)을 부과하게 되어 제품개발과 혁신을 위축시키는 등의 부정적(否定的) 영향을 초래할 위험이 크다. 따라서 결함의 추정은 인정하지 않아야 하며, 제품개발 및 혁신을 도모하기 위해 개발위험항변(開發危險抗辯)은 인정되어야 한다. 손해배상액(損害賠償額) 상한(上限)을 두지 않는 것이 경제적으로 효율적이고 연대책임을 인정하여 유통업자의 안전제고유인(安全提高誘因)도 강화하는 것이 효과적이다. 중소기업을 포함한 모든 기업에게 입법후 1년 정도의 준비기간(準備期間)을 주는 것이 바람직할 듯하며, 배상책임보험(賠償責任保險)은 의무화하지 않는 것이 경제적으로 효율적이다. 기계, 전자, 운송용기기, 건설, 화학, 식 의약품, 가스제품, 완구, 운동용구 등이 영향을 크게 받을 것으로 예상되지만 법제이용(法制利用)의 편의가 개선되기 전에는 소송의 증가는 미미하리라 예상된다.

  • PDF

Historical Review for the Government Contractor Defense (Government Contractor Defense(정부계약자항변)에 대한 연혁적 고찰)

  • Shin, Sung-hwan
    • Journal of Advanced Navigation Technology
    • /
    • v.21 no.3
    • /
    • pp.230-242
    • /
    • 2017
  • 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.

A Study on the Legal Liabilities of Contractor as a Delay in the Product Delivery on the Offshore Plant Construction Contract (해양플랜트공사계약상 제조물인도지연에 따른 당사자의 법적 책임에 관한 고찰)

  • Jin, Ho-Hyun
    • MARITIME LAW REVIEW
    • /
    • v.29 no.2
    • /
    • pp.115-144
    • /
    • 2017
  • The impact of the global financial crisis, which began in the United States in 2007, had a major impact on the domestic shipping and shipbuilding industries. In this regard, the domestic shipyard has established an order-taking strategy in several ways as an alternative to lowering the amount of construction of commercial vessels due to deterioration of the shipping industry, and selected industrial sector was the offshore plant sector. However, the domestic shipyard has under performed the offshore plant in order to just increase sales and secure work without any risk analysis for EPC contracts. As a result, the shipyard has been charged more than the initial contract price with the offshore plant contractor, or the shipyard has become a legal issue requiring payment of liquidated damages due to delays in delivery of the product. The main legal disputes are caused by the thorough risk analysis and the inexperience of process control that can occur during offshore plant construction. and In particular, there is no sufficient review of the unequivocal provisions in the contract as an element of risk management. There is no human resource to review these contractual clauses. Therefore, this study identifies the existence of specific risks that could lead to delays in offshore plant construction, and examined the existence of any unequivocal clauses in contracts for offshore plant construction. and also discussed how the toxic clause applies to the actual parties and how the concrete risk factors in the construction contracts are transferred and expressed by referring to the interviews with the project manager of the domestic shipyard and the previous research. As a result, This paper examined the legal liability of the contracting parties regarding delayed delivery of the products due to the offshore plant construction contract. And to improve the domestic shipbuilding industry.

The Liability for Unsafe Medical Product and The Preemption Clause of Medical Device Act (의료기기의 결함으로 인한 손해배상책임과 미국 연방법 우선 적용 이론에 관하여)

  • Kim, Jang Han
    • The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
    • /
    • v.15 no.2
    • /
    • pp.63-89
    • /
    • 2014
  • In 1976, the Dalkon Shield-intrauterine device injured several thousand women in U.S.A. which caused the changes of medical deivce regulation. The Medical Device Regulation Act or Medical Device Amendments of 1976 (MDA) was introduce. As part of the process of regulating medical devices, the MDA divides medical devices into three categories. The class II, and III devices which have moderate harm or more can use the section 510 (k), premarket notification process if the manufacturer can establish that its device is "substantially equivalent" to a device that was marketed before 1976. In 21 U.S.C. ${\S}$ 360k(a), MDA introduced a provision which expressly preempts competing state laws or regulations. After that, the judicial debates had began over the proper interpretation and application of Section 360(k) In February 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Riegel v. Medtronic that manufacturer approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)'s pre-market approval process are preempted from liability, even when the devices have defective design or lack of labeling. But the Supreme Court ruled in Medtronic Inc. v. Lora Lohr that the manufactures which use the section 510 (k) process cannot be preempted and in Bausch v. Stryker Corp. that manufactures which violated the CGMP standard are also liable to the damage of patient at the state courts. In 2009, the Supreme Court ruled in Wyeth v. Levine that patients harmed by prescription drugs can claim damages in state courts. This may cause a double standard between prescription drugs and medical devices. FDA Preemption is the legal theory in the United States that exempts product manufacturers from tort claims regarding Food and Drug Administration approved products. FDA Preemption has been a highly contentious issue. In general, consumer groups are against it while the FDA and pharmaceutical manufacturers are in favor of it. This issues also influences the theory of product liability of U.S.A. Complete immunity preemption is an issue need to be more declared.

  • PDF

A Study on Conflict Prevention in the Site Selection of National Defense Facility Relocation Projects (중대재해 처벌 법의 실효성 제고를 위한 법적 쟁점 분석 및 경영자 안전보건관리 전략에 대한 연구)

  • Hoon Han
    • The Journal of the Convergence on Culture Technology
    • /
    • v.10 no.5
    • /
    • pp.253-260
    • /
    • 2024
  • This study aims to analyze the key legal issues of the Serious Accidents Punishment Act (SAPA), which came into effect on 2022, in South Korea, and to propose practical occupational safety and health management strategies for business executives. The SAPA was introduced to prevent serious industrial accidents and protect workers' lives and safety. However, its effectiveness has been controversial due to the ambiguity of the law and uncertainty in its application. The study first provides an overview of the SAPA's main provisions and analyzes legal issues focusing on the punishment of business executives and the punitive damages system. Key issues identified include the ambiguity of "safety and health obligations," difficulties in proving causality, and unclear criteria for determining intent or gross negligence. Recent cases of serious accidents are examined to illustrate practical challenges in applying the law. Furthermore, the study compares the punitive damages system under the SAPA with that of the Product Liability Act and similar systems in the United States, United Kingdom, and Germany. This comparative analysis highlights the characteristics and problems of the Korean system, such as the unclear punitive nature, controversy over excessive compensation, and potential for abuse of litigation. Finally, the study proposes practical occupational safety and health management strategies for business executives to effectively respond to the SAPA and create safer workplaces. Key strategies include establishing a safety and health management system, conducting risk assessments, implementing safety education, managing subcontractor safety, and investing in safety and health.

Indonesia, Malaysia Airline's aircraft accidents and the Indonesian, Korean, Chinese Aviation Law and the 1999 Montreal Convention

  • Kim, Doo-Hwan
    • The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
    • /
    • v.30 no.2
    • /
    • pp.37-81
    • /
    • 2015
  • AirAsia QZ8501 Jet departed from Juanda International Airport in, Surabaya, Indonesia at 05:35 on Dec. 28, 2014 and was scheduled to arrive at Changi International Airport in Singapore at 08:30 the same day. The aircraft, an Airbus A320-200 crashed into the Java Sea on Dec. 28, 2014 carrying 162 passengers and crew off the coast of Indonesia's second largest city Surabaya on its way to Singapore. Indonesia's AirAsia jet carrying 162 people lost contact with ground control on Dec. 28, 2014. The aircraft's debris was found about 66 miles from the plane's last detected position. The 155 passengers and seven crew members aboard Flight QZ 8501, which vanished from radar 42 minutes after having departed Indonesia's second largest city of Surabaya bound for Singapore early Dec. 28, 2014. AirAsia QZ8501 had on board 137 adult passengers, 17 children and one infant, along with two pilots and five crew members in the aircraft, a majority of them Indonesian nationals. On board Flight QZ8501 were 155 Indonesian, three South Koreans, and one person each from Singapore, Malaysia and the UK. The Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 departed from Kuala Lumpur International Airport on March 8, 2014 at 00:41 local time and was scheduled to land at Beijing's Capital International Airport at 06:30 local time. Malaysia Airlines also marketed as China Southern Airlines Flight 748 (CZ748) through a code-share agreement, was a scheduled international passenger flight that disappeared on 8 March 2014 en route from Kuala Lumpur International Airport to Beijing's Capital International Airport (a distance of 2,743 miles: 4,414 km). The aircraft, a Boeing 777-200ER, last made contact with air traffic control less than an hour after takeoff. Operated by Malaysia Airlines (MAS), the aircraft carried 12 crew members and 227 passengers from 15 nations. There were 227 passengers, including 153 Chinese and 38 Malaysians, according to records. Nearly two-thirds of the passengers on Flight 370 were from China. On April 5, 2014 what could be the wreckage of the ill-fated Malaysia Airlines was found. What appeared to be the remnants of flight MH370 have been spotted drifting in a remote section of the Indian Ocean. Compensation for loss of life is vastly different between US. passengers and non-U.S. passengers. "If the claim is brought in the US. court, it's of significantly more value than if it's brought into any other court." Some victims and survivors of the Indonesian and Malaysia airline's air crash case would like to sue the lawsuit to the United States court in order to receive a larger compensation package for damage caused by an accident that occurred in the sea of Java sea and the Indian ocean and rather than taking it to the Indonesian or Malaysian court. Though each victim and survivor of the Indonesian and Malaysia airline's air crash case will receive an unconditional 113,100 Unit of Account (SDR) as an amount of compensation for damage from Indonesia's AirAsia and Malaysia Airlines in accordance with Article 21, 1 (absolute, strict, no-fault liability system) of the 1999 Montreal Convention. But if Indonesia AirAsia airlines and Malaysia Airlines cannot prove as to the following two points without fault based on Article 21, 2 (presumed faulty system) of the 1999 Montreal Convention, AirAsia of Indonesiaand Malaysia Airlines will be burdened the unlimited liability to the each victim and survivor of the Indonesian and Malaysia airline's air crash case such as (1) such damage was not due to the negligence or other wrongful act or omission of the air carrier or its servants or agents, or (2) such damage was solely due to the negligence or other wrongful act or omission of a third party. In this researcher's view for the aforementioned reasons, and under the laws of China, Indonesia, Malaysia and Korea the Chinese, Indonesian, Malaysia and Korean, some victims and survivors of the crash of the two flights are entitled to receive possibly from more than 113,100 SDR to 5 million US$ from the two airlines or from the Aviation Insurance Company based on decision of the American court. It could also be argued that it is reasonable and necessary to revise the clause referring to bodily injury to a clause mentioning personal injury based on Article 17 of the 1999 Montreal Convention so as to be included the mental injury and condolence in the near future.