• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.32 no.1
• /
• pp.139-175
• /
• 2017

The Assembly plenary session on December 3, 2017 passed a Product Liability Amendment bill that introduced clauses concerning consumer burden of proof and punitive damage reimbursement. More specifically, these newly approved provisions will reduce the burden of proof placed on consumers and levy triple punitive damage on suppliers. Significant increases in the number of product-liability lawsuit and the number of related insurance contracts are expected. Since military aircraft are designed for operational purpose(seeking greater combat effectiveness over greater safety) and used in high-risk environment, it is practically impossible to obtain an affordable product-liability insurance, Without having any backup plan, military aircraft manufacturers directly face all sort of liability risks under Product Liability Act, Warrant Liability Act and Non-Performance of Contract Act. The U.S. experienced similar problems when they first implemented their product-liability law in 1970s. There had been a big dispute among legal practitioner, insurance professionals and scholars concerning military aircraft manufacturer's liability. In order to settle the issue, the U.S. Supreme Court has established a new precedent of Government Contractor Defense(GCD). The U.S. government also included an indemnity clause for military aircraft manufacturers in their FMS Contract with the Korean government. Likewise, Korean military aircraft manufacturers should 1) clearly understand their current position that they cannot afford expensive product-liability insurance and the cost is not accounted in the military procurement calculation, 2) estimate potential liability risks with the ongoing overseas export expansion in mind, 3) set up appropriate risk management measures through regulatory reform and policy development.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.29 no.2
• /
• pp.55-86
• /
• 2014

The U.S. General Aviation Revitalization Act of 1994 (the "GARA") created a statute of repose that bars any claims arising from an aviation product or component more than 18 years after its date of delivery. The statute was enacted to protect general aviation aircraft manufacturers from the excessive product liability costs. The GARA included four exceptions: (a) medical emergency patients, (b) those not on the aircraft, (c) those based on written warranties, and (d) those causally related to a "knowing misrepresentation" made by the manufacturer to the FAA. The GARA also incorporates a provision for revised starting point of reckoning to which any repairs or replacements of an aviation product. This note aimed to discuss General Aviation and GARA in depth including the meaning of statue of repose, its exceptions. The various precedents about GARA were also reviewed in here as well. From the GARA, as a comparative legal issue in aviation product liability, there can be some suggestions for revision of Korean Products Liability Act. First, it seems to be reasonable to regulate the specific statute of repose provisions for various category of products. In GARA, the period of 18 years is reasonable concerning to the average aircraft life. Second, in order to avoid exhausting debate and for the judicial economy, it needs to clarify when the statute begins to run. GARA's 18 year limitation period begins to run on the different date whether it was delivered to its first purchaser or a person engaged in the business of selling the aircraft. Last but not least, proper exceptions should be added into the law for equity matter of the statute of repose does not apply. For example, a manufacturer is not protected by GARA if it knowingly misrepresents certain safety information to the FAA.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.30 no.1
• /
• pp.151-180
• /
• 2015

South Korea is advancing the unmanned aircraft private commercial business. Unmanned aerial vehciles industry has been developing for several years also abroad. However, unmanned aerial vehciles industry, can be an accident occurs. Accident of unmanned aerial vehciles to occur material damage and casualties. Particularly if an accident because of a defect in the unmanned aerial vehciles has occurred, it is necessary to analyze the liability for this. The defect accidents unmanned aerial vehciles has been the different manufacturing and design product is intended, whether it is important how to prove to this. This is because, unmanned aerial vehciles are designed in any intent of the original, it is impossible to victims know. So imposing a responsibility to prove the design by the manufacturer intended consumer is not fair. Moreover, the consumer, it is necessary to prove only that the product is one that normally dangerous lacked safety can be expected. This is a detailed issue of judgment of defects of unmanned aerial vehciles, the manufacturer to bear the accountability. In the case where the defect on the display of the unmanned aircraft is a problem, and if it reasonable indication, it is not appropriate to be required to prove that it was possible to prevent damage to the victim.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.25 no.2
• /
• pp.3-42
• /
• 2010

This study shows that the Warsaw Convention in Article 1 is not an international transport, origin, destination and all the Contracting Parties is not a purely domestic shipping does not apply to this Treaty. Therefore, in this case, liability and damages for the governing law is selected according to international law should be. In addition, in the case of international shipping and passenger air carrier of this treaty to govern the relationship, not all of which aim is the unification of certain rules. Product liability is the most important thing of all. As for the aircraft manufacturer's responsibility according to international law also does not select the applicable law is not. The Warsaw Convention Article 17 apply for the passenger's personal damages Article 2 Section 2 leads to the most prestigious type of damages, and subjective and objective with regard to the scope of international law are being committed. In this regard, Governing Law-related aircraft accidents leading to serious accidents in China of an aircraft crash in Nagoya, Japan, the airport can be. China Airlines accident of the aircraft are operated for the unification of the rules for international air transport on the Warsaw Convention as amended by Article 17, Article 18 of damages by the tort claims and claims based on damages caused by, or this cause of aircraft accidents air bus maker by the Corporation for damages in tort claims for damages claimed on the basis of solidarity is the case. In the case of these grand scale claim responsibility for the airline, air transport agreements to determine the applicable law of the contract is very complex. There for the contracts based on individual circumstances or origin, and by considering because each must be determined.

• 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.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.21 no.1
• /
• pp.169-189
• /
• 2006

In 2007, KSLV(Korea Small Launching Vehicle) that we made at Goheung National Space Center is going to launch and promotes of our space exploration systematically and 'Space Exploration Promotion Act' was enter into force. 'Space Exploration Promotion Act' article 3, section 1, as is prescribing "Korean government keeps the space treaties contracted with other countries and international organizations and pursues after peaceful uses of outer space." The representative international treaties are Outer Space Treaty (1967) and Liability Convention (1972) etc. In Liability convention article 2, "A launching State shall be absolutely liable to pay compensation for damage caused by its space object on the surface of the earth or to aircraft in flight. The important content of the art. 2 is the responsible entity is the 'State' not the 'Company'. According by Korean Space Exploration Act art. 14, person who launches space objects according to art. 8 and art. 11 must bear the liability for damages owing to space accidents of the space objects. Could Korean government apply the Products Liability Act which is enter into force from July 1, 2002 to space launching person? And what is the contact type between Korea Aerospace Research Institute(KARl) and Russia manufacturer. Is that a Co-Development contract or Licence Product contract? And there is no exemption clause to waive the Russia manufacturer's liability which we could find it from other similar contract condition. If there is no exemption clause to the Russia manufacturer, could we apply the Korean Products Liability Act to Russia one? The most important legal point is whether we could apply the Korean Products Liability Act to the main component company. According by the art. 17 of the contract between KARl and the company, KARl already apply the Products Liability Act to the main component company. For reference, we need to examine the Appalachian Insurance co. v. McDonnell Douglas case, this case is that long distance electricity communication satellite of Western Union Telegraph company possessions fails on track entry. In Western Union's insurance company supplied to Western Union with insurance of $ 105 millions, which has the satellite regard as entirely damage. Five insurance companies -Appalachian insurance company, Commonwealth insurance company, Industrial Indemnity, Mutual Marine Office, Northbrook Excess & Surplus insurance company- went to court against McDonnell Douglases, Morton Thiokol and Hitco company to inquire for fault and strict liability of product. By the Appalachian Insurance co. v. McDonnell Douglas case, KARl should waiver the main component's product liability burden. And we could study the possibility of the adapt 'Government Contractor Defense' theory to the main component company.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.20 no.2
• /
• pp.59-158
• /
• 2005

When a military aircraft suffers damages due to the defects in its design, manufacturing or notification, all of which are generally understood as products liability defects, the obvious compensation is sought as it would in other consumer good case. However, there exist clear yet unappreciated difference between general consumer goods and military aircraft, as far as products liability law is concerned - some sort of recovery should be obtained even when there exist only defects, not damages, to the aircraft because of the implication of defective parts is much grave than what can be expected in a consumer goods case. While certain anticipatory measures do exist in manual or at negotiation stages for the safety of military aircraft, such measures are ineffective, if not ambiguous, in recovery effort in the post-accident stage In another word, the standardized military procurement contract manuals and boilerplate forms do not appreciate the unique and dangerous military nature of military aircraft. There are many unique legal issues which can arise when trying to prevent defective aircraft or parts, or to recover compensations for accident due to such defects. At two-level, the government should establish legal system (or countermeasures if you'd like) for purchasing safer military aircraft. First, one should be able to work with legal ground and policy that allows selecting and purchasing safer goods - the purpose of such contract is not litigious, but rather in acquiring what are most reliable. Second, in case the defects do arise and lead to damages, solid legal principles and instructions should be established for effectively pursuing appropriate company, (usually a aerospace industry giant with much experience) for products liability - the purpose of such pursuit is inevitable for a public official, since he or she is no private business man with much flexibilities, even to the point of waiving such compensatory right for future business purposes. This article tries to identify problems in methods of procuring military aircraft or parts - after reviewing on how the military can improve on legal and policy grounds for procuring what will be the focus of future military strength, it will offer some of the ways to effectively handling and resolving a liability issues.

• Proceedings of the Korea Technology Innovation Society Conference
• /
• 2017.05a
• /
• pp.71-79
• /
• 2017

조종사가 탑승하지 않고도 지정된 임무를 수행할 수 있도록 제작된 무인항공기(드론)가 다양한 장비(광학, 적외선, 레이더 센서 등)를 탑재하여 활용되고 있다. 지금까지는 국가안보 유지 수단으로서 감시 정찰 정밀공격무기의 유도 등의 임무를 수행하여 왔다. 최근에는 민간부문에서도 다양한 용도로 활용되고 있어서 정부(국토교통부 산업통상자원부)는 무인항공기의 국내경제발전의 파급효과를 인지하고, 세계 무인항공기시장에서 우선순위를 선점하기 위해 투자확대를 기해 왔다. 무인항공기시장이 산업발전과 고용촉진에 도움이 되어 국내경제에 긍정적인 효과가 많다고 하더라도 무인항공기의 안전운행을 담보할 다양한 법적 제도적인 장치의 마련이 필요하다. 따라서 무인항공기로 야기되는 다양한 유형의 사고를 검토하여 이에 대한 법적 책임에 대한 분석이 필요하다. 무인항공기의 사고는 운영자의 운영상의 과실로 인한 사고도 있고 무인항공기 자체의 결함으로 인한 사고도 발생할 수 있다. 또한 운행자의 고의과실로 인한 타인의 권리(프라이버시권 등)를 침해하는 경우나 무인항공기끼리의 충돌사고도 발생할 수 있다. 이러한 사고로 인한 책임은 민사책임으로서 대부분 지상 제3자에 대한 생명 신체 또는 재산상의 손해배상책임이다. 이러한 책임을 규율하는 국제협약으로 로마협약이 있지만 체약국이 없기 때문에 국제협약으로서의 역할을 못하고 있다. 따라서 현재로서는 각국의 국내법에 의하여 해결될 가능성이 많을 것으로 생각된다. 무인항공기 운영자의 과실로 인한 사고는 민법이나 상법이 적용될 수 있고, 무인항공기의 제작결함으로 인해 사고가 발생하였을 경우와 시스템의 오작동으로 인해 사고가 발생하였다면 제조물 책임을 물어야 할 경우도 있을 수 있다. 이러한 법적 쟁점에 대한 검토를 통하여 무인항공기 공급과 활용의 확대로 인한 다양한 사고발생과 책임범위를 명확히 하여 사고당사자들의 책임관계를 인식시키는 것이 필요하다.

• Journal of the Korean Society for Aviation and Aeronautics
• /
• v.12 no.3
• /
• pp.41-63
• /
• 2004

The area covered by product liability in broadest sense is so vast that an attempt to analyse all its impact on the aviation world risk. Every effort has been made to confine our review of subject a closely as possible to its influence on aircraft manufacturers, airlines and passengers, in spite of strong connections with other spheres of commercial. Product Liability in aviation is the liability of aircraft's manufacturer, processor or non-manufacturing seller for injury to the person or property of a buyer or third party caused by a product which has been sold. Here-in a product is aircraft, third party is passengers who suffered damage by defective design, defective construction, inadequate instructions for handling in aircraft. Whenever a product turns out to be defective after it has been sold, there are under Anglo-American law three remedies available against the aircraft's manufacturer (1) liability for negligence (2) breach of warranty (3) strict liability in tort. There are Under continental law Three remedies available against the aircraft's manufacturer (1) liability for defective warranty (2) liability for non-fulfillment of obligation (3) liability in tort. It is worth pointing out here an action for breach of warranty or for defective warranty, for non-fulfillment of obligation is available only to direct purchaser on the basis of his contract with the aircraft's manufacturer, which of course weakness its range and effectiveness. An action for tort offers the advantage of being available also to third parties who have acquired the defective product at a later stage. In tort, obligations are constituted not only by contract, but also by stature and common law. In conclusion, There in no difference in principle of law. In conclusion I would like to make few suggestions regarding the product liability for aircraft's manufacturer. Firstly, current general product liability code does not specify whether government offices(e.g. FAA) inspector conducted the inspection and auditory certificate can qualify as conclusive legal evidence. These need to be clarified. Secondly, because Korea is gaining potential of becoming aircraft's manufacturer through co-manufacturing and subcontracting-manufacturing with the US and independent production, there needs legislation that can harmonize the protection of both aircraft's manufacturers and their injured parties. Since Korea is in primary stage of aviation industry, considerate policy cannot be overlooked for its protection and promotion. Thirdly, because aircraft manufacturers are risking restitution like air-carriers whose scope of restitution have widened to strict and unlimited liability, there needs importation of mandatory liability insurance and national warranty into the product liability for aircraft's manufacturers. Fourthly, there needs domestic legislation of air transportation law that clearly regulates overall legal relationship in air transportation such as carrier & aircraft manufacturer's liability, and aviation insurance.

• 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.