• 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.33 no.2
• /
• pp.367-418
• /
• 2018

Just as safety is the most important thing in aviation, safety is the most important in the operation of unmanned aircraft (RPA), and safety operation is the most important in the legal responsibility of the operator of the unmanned aircraft. In this thesis, the legal responsibility of the operator of the unmanned aircraft, focusing on the responsibility of the operator of the unmanned aircraft, was discussed in depth with the issue of insurance, which compensates for damages in the event of an accident First of all, the legal responsibility of the operator of the unmanned aircraft was reviewed for the most basic : definition, scope and qualification of the operator of the unmanned aircraft, and the liability of the operator of the Convention On International Civil Aviation, the ICAO Annex, the RPAS Manual, the Rome Convention, other major international treaties and Domestic law such as the Aviation Safety Act. The ICAO requires that unmanned aircraft be operated in such a manner as to minimize hazards to persons, property or other aircraft as a major principle of the operation of unmanned aircraft, which is ultimately equivalent to manned aircraft Considering that most accidents involving unmanned aircrafts fall to the ground, causing damage to third parties' lives or property, this thesis focused on the responsibility of operators under the international treaty, and the responsibility of third parties for air transport by Domestic Commercial Act, as well as the liability for compensation. In relation to the Rome Convention, the Rome Convention 1952 detailed the responsibilities of the operator. Although it has yet to come into effect regarding liability, some EU countries are following the limit of responsibility under the Rome Convention 2009. Korea has yet to sign any Rome Convention, but Commercial Act Part VI Carriage by Air is modeled on the Rome Convention 1978 in terms of compensation. This thesis also looked at security-related responsibilities and the responsibility for privacy infringement. which are most problematic due to the legal responsibilities of operating unmanned aircraft. Concerning insurance, this thesis looked at the trends of mandatory aviation insurance coverage around the world and the corresponding regulatory status of major countries to see the applicability of unmanned aircraft. It also looked at the current clauses of the Domestic Aviation Business Act that make insurance mandatory, and the ultra-light flight equipment insurance policy and problems. In sum, the operator of an unmanned aircraft will be legally responsible for operating the unmanned aircraft safely so that it does not pose a risk to people, property or other aircraft, and there will be adequate compensation in the event of an accident, and legal systems such as insurance systems should be prepared to do so.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.23 no.1
• /
• pp.3-32
• /
• 2008

In proportion to recent developments in aviation technology and growth of the air transport market, the risk of damages to third parties caused by aircrafts and the likelihood of unlawful interference on an aircraft in flight has grown larger. The war risk insurance market was paralyzed by the 9/11 terror event. And if another event on the scale of 9/11 occurs, compensations for third party damages will be impossible. Recognizing the need to modernize the existing legal framework and the absence of a globally accepted authority that deals with third party liability and compensation for catastrophic damage caused by acts of unlawful interference, the ICAO and various countries have discussed a liability and compensation system that can protect both third party victims and the aviation industry for the 7 years. In conclusion, in order to provide adequate protection for victims and the appropriate protection for air transport systems including air carriers, work on modernizing the Rome Convention should be continued and the new Convention should be finalized in the near future. Korea has not ratified the relevant international treaties, i.e. Rome Convention 1933, 1952 and 1978, and has no local laws which regulate the damage caused by aircraft to third parties on land. Consequently, it has to depend on the domestic civil tort laws. Most of the advanced countries in aviation such as the United States, England, Germany, France and even China, have incorporated the International Conventions to their national air law and governed carriers third party liability within their jurisdiction. The Ministry of Justice organized the Special Enactment Committee for Air Transport chapter under Commercial Law. The Air Transport chapter, which currently includes third party liability, is in the process of instituting new legislation. In conclusion, to settle such problems through local law, it is necessary to enact as soon as possible domestic legislation on the civil liability of the air carrier which has been connected with third party liability and aviation insurance.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.25 no.2
• /
• pp.43-77
• /
• 2010

The development of the aviation industry has exponentially increased the volume of passengers and cargo and gradually expanded the damage scope of all kinds of accidents in the process of transportation. As a result, the need for aviation insurance has accordingly grown bigger and bigger every day. That is why most nations have a law to force mandatory insurance on the aviation industry. However, the Montreal Convention of 1999, which Korea also signed and today has the most extensive effect in the international civil aviation community, offers no clear interpretations about the coverage of aviation insurance along with the Air Transport Business Promotion Act of Korea. The advanced nations of air transport business such as EU, the U. S. A. and Canada prescribe the coverage of aviation insurance and have a law that makes it mandatory for all the passengers and third parties to cover air carrier's liability. EU requires them to include cargo and baggage in scope of coverage, and the U. S. A. and Canada recommend insuring by having a shipper receive a written notice containing information about whether the concerned cargo is insured or not. Making the scope of coverage of aviation insurance clear by law serves several purposes including diversifying risks for air transport companies, providing the victims with enough protection, observing the international accountability required in the air transport industry, and promoting the productive and sustainable growth of the aviation industry. Thus problems with Korea's aviation insurance should be resolved by clearly stating the coverage of aviation insurance that the Korean air carriers and operators need to insure according to the current state of Korea's air transport by consulting the legislations of the advanced nations in air transports. and enacting a law to comprehensively govern Korea's aviation insurance.

• 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 INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.20
• /
• pp.213-239
• /
• 2003

This paper intends to describe the liability regime of the air carrier under the Montreal Convention of 1999 for the international cargo, comparing to those of the existing Warsaw Convention system. Also this paper deals with main issues of the Montreal Convention which are relevant for the carrier's liability in the carriage by air of cargo. The Warsaw Convention was adopted in 1929 and modified successively in 1955, 1961, 1971, 1975, and 1999. The Montreal Convention of 1999 modernized and consolidated the Warsaw Convention and related instruments. International air carrier is liable by application of principle of strict liability as stated in the Montreal Convention : The carrier is liable for the destruction or loss of, or damage to cargo and delay during the carriage by air, and the carrier's liability is limited to a sum of 17 Special Drawing Rights per kilogramme. However, the Montreal Convention has main outstanding issues with respect to the liability of the air carrier : potential conflicts between the Montreal Convention and the Warsaw Convention, the amounts of limits of the carrier's liability, the duration of the carrier's liability, the exessive litigation, and the aviation insurance. Therefore, the conditions and limits of the carrier's liability under the Montreal Convention should be readjusted and regulated in detail.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.33 no.2
• /
• pp.169-197
• /
• 2018

The purpose of this study is to present a reasonable and concrete standard for the Korean aviation insurance compulsory subscription system. Through this, we aim to improve the current revision of laws and regulations, and ultimately create an environment in which the safety and property of the Korean people who use aircraft with appropriate aviation insurance can be secured. In particular, by reviewing the aviation business law and its new laws and regulations enacted in 2017, the legislative improvement direction of aviation insurance will be proposed. In order to maintain the continuous growth of the air transportation industry and to make amicable compensation for the victims, considering the characteristics of the total accident, instantness, and giganticness of air accidents in which a lot of people and property are lost in the event of an accident, adequate insurance coverage is essential. In this respect, the compulsory insurance to amend the principle of freedom of contract, which is the great principle of the modern judicial system, will be persuasive. However, in comparison with foreign legislation, the legal provisions on Korea's obligation to comply with aviation insurance need to be revised around the following issues: First, it is reasonable to enforce the regulation of the mandatory aviation insurance by legislation from the Congress not by administrative regulations. Because it will force the monetary obligations of the individual such as common air carriers. Second, our law regulations respond to various kinds of air damages by using the phrase "limit of liability stipulated in international conventions". However, as we have seen in the text, the range of compensation are various according to the use of legal instruments in international conventions such as the Montreal Convention, which governs the compensation of passengers for damages to passengers today. Third, in countries with narrow territories, such as Korea, there are big differences in flying time and insurable risk between domestic and international transportation. Therefore, it is necessary to divide domestic transportation and international transportation even in the obligation to join the insurance. This dual discipline has the advantage for rookies in air carrier market who mainly start their business from domestic service. Fourth, according to Korean law, the regulations of automobile loss insurance is applicable to the aviation mandatory insurance of unmanned aerial vehicle accident which is lack of persuasion. In the future, it will be appropriate to discipline insurance for unmanned aerial vehicles with unlimited potential for development from a long-term perspective.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.5
• /
• pp.171-205
• /
• 1993

On the contrary to the general principle of private law, carriers' liability for passengers and cargo owners have been quantatively limited in some cases. The author traces the rule of liability limitation in the law of Korea and United States to verify two hypotheses. The first hypothesis is that the rule of liability limitation has been introduced to motivate investment when new technology with high risk has been adopted in business. The second hypothesis is that the rule of liability limitation can be maintained only when damages have been fully compensated. The former is a necessary condition for liability limation, and the latter sufficient condition. There are strong evidences for the first hypothesis. Navigation or aviation, artificial satellite lauching, urban transportation system are good examples. The second hypothesis is supported by the fact that there have been continuous controversies on the Warsaw System, including the failure of ratification of Montreal Additional Protocols No.3 & 4 by the U.S. Senate and voluntary removal of liability limitation by the Japanese airline companies. Loss of cargo can be compensated fully, but damages from personal injury and death not. The value of human body and life is not easy to be estimated. Passengers, moreover, do not usually buy insurance for accidents in travel. Passengers do not accept insurance premium as the cost of being whole and alive. They do not accept accident rates realistically. They have no bargaining power in dealing with insurers. The rule of liability limitation in personal losses would not be supported in future because damages have not fully compensated.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.23 no.2
• /
• pp.31-66
• /
• 2008

Until Montreal Convention was established in 1999, the Warsaw System is undoubtedly accepted private international air law treaty and has played major role on the carrier's liability in international aviation transport industry. But the whole Warsaw System, though it was revised many times to meet the rapid developments of the aviation transport industry, is so complicated, tangled and outdated. This thesis, therefore, aim to introduce the Montreal Convention by interpreting it as a new legal instrument on the air carrier's liability, specially on the passenger's, and analyzing all the issues relating to it. The Montreal Convention markedly changed the rules governing international carriage by air. The Montreal Convention has modernized and consolidated the old Warsaw System of international instruments of private international air law into one legal instrument. One of the most significant features of the Montreal Convention is that it sifted its priority to the protection of the interest of the consumers from the protection of the carrier which originally the Warsaw Convention intended to protect the fledgling international air transport business. Two major features of the Montreal Convention adopts are the Two-tier Liability System and the Fifth Jurisdiction. In case of death or bodily injury to passengers, the Montreal Convention introduces a two-tier liability system. The first tier includes strict liability up to 100,000SDR, irrespective of carriers' fault. The second tier is based on presumption of fault of carrier and has no limit of liability. Regarding Jurisdiction, the Montreal Convention expands upon the four jurisdiction in which the carrier could be sued by adding a fifth jurisdiction, i.e., a passenger can bring suit in a country in which he or she has their permanent and principal residence and in which the carrier provides a services for the carriage of passengers by either its own aircraft or through a commercial agreement. Other features are introducing the advance payment, electronic ticketing, compulsory insurance and regulation on the contracting and actual carrier etc. As we see some major features of the Montreal Convention, the Convention heralds the single biggest change in the international aviation liability and there can be no doubt it will prevail the international aviation transport world in the future. Our government signed this Convention on 20th Sep. 2007 and it came into effect on 29th Dec. 2007 domestically. Thus, it was recognized that domestic carriers can adequately and independently manage the change of risks of liability. I, therefore, would like to suggest our country's aviation industry including newly-born low cost carrier prepare some countermeasures domestically that are necessary to the enforcement of the Convention.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.33 no.1
• /
• pp.227-260
• /
• 2018

Recently, as the use of drones increases, the risk of drone accidents and third-party property damage is also increasing. In Korea, due to the recent increase in drone use, accidents have been frequently reported in the media. The number of reports from citizens, and military and police calls regarding illegal or inappropriate drone use has also been increasing. Drone operators may be responsible for paying damages to third parties due to drone accidents, and are liable for paying settlements due to illegal video recording. Therefore, it is necessary to study the idea of providing drone insurance, which can mitigate the liability and risk caused by drone accidents. In the US, comprehensive housing insurance covers damages caused by recreational drones around the property. In the UK, when a drone accident occurs, the drone owner or operator bears strict liability. Also, in the UK, drone insurance joining obligation depends on the weight of the drones and their intended use. In Germany, in the event of personal or material damage, drone owner bears strict liability as long as their drone is registered as an aircraft. Germany also requires by law that all drone owners carry liability insurance. In Korea, insurance is required only for "ultra-light aircraft use businesses, airplane rental companies and leisure sports businesses," where the aircraft is "paid for according to the demand of others." Therefore, it can be difficult to file claims for third party damages caused by unmanned aerial vehicles in personal use. Foreign insurance companies are selling drone insurance that covers a variety of damages that can occur during drone accidents. Some insurance companies in Korea also have developed and sell drone insurance. However, the premiums are very high. In addition, drone insurance that addresses specific problems related to drone accidents is also lacking. In order for drone insurance to be viable, it is first necessary to reduce the insurance premiums or rates. In order to trim the excess cost of drone insurance premiums, drone flight data should be accessible to the insurance company, possibly provided by the drone pilot project. Finally, in order to facilitate claims by third parties, it is necessary to study how to establish specific policy language that addresses drone weight, location, and flight frequency.