• 논리연구
• /
• 제11권2호
• /
• pp.127-170
• /
• 2008

This paper aims to present solutions to three intriguing puzzles on causation that Benardete presents by considering the results of infinite series of telescoping events. The main conceptual tool used in the solutions is the notion of collective causation, what many events cause collectively. It is straightforward to apply the notion to resolve two of the three puzzles. It does not seem as straightforward to apply it to the other puzzle. After some preliminary clarifications of the situation that Benardete describes to present the puzzle, however, we can apply the notion to resolve it as well.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제15권
• /
• pp.119-136
• /
• 2001

The purpose of this paper is to consider how to decide the cause of loss or damage to the transport goods when maritime accident occurs. In marine insurance, the underwriter is liable for any loss or damage proximately caused by a risk insured(MIA Art.55). So it is very important to determine the proximate cause of loss or damage to ascertain whether it is to be recoverable under the policy. But there is no definite conception or rule what is the proximate cause. It was left to the tribunal as a question of fact. In this paper, I will suggest the general rules to determine the proximate cause of loss or damage of the transport goods in marine insurance. First, in MIA 1906, there is the rule of proximate causation and it has been established the effective causation by cases since 1918. Second, in Institute Cargo Clauses(B) & (C), there are rules of considerably relaxed standards to determine the causation of loss of or damage using the "attributable to" and "caused by" basis. Third, it is noted, under the complex causation situation, there are difference basises to decide the liability of underwriters between the case of successive occurrence of single risk and the case of concurrent occurrence of several risks. Forth, in practice, it couldn't be ascertained the underwrier's liability by a definite rule and it should be fully considered the circumstances and conditions of the loss.

• 의료법학
• /
• 제8권1호
• /
• pp.179-211
• /
• 2007

To succeed the claim of medical malpractice litigation, the patient as a plaintiff should establish the medical fault of a physician as a defendant, and the causation between the fault and damages. Because of the extraordinary nature of medical province, however, this application of a legal principles is rigorous with the patient. In addition, given the causation between the validation of physician's fault and damage is not attested, patient is not awarded anything. In order to overcome a difficulty of patient's verification and ensure the right to fair process, it was demonstrated the lightening of burden of proof in medical malpractice litigation and the acceptance of the responsibility for an illegal act in a prescribed range in the absence of the causation between the physician's fault and damage. This paper deals with the judgement of causation and burden of proof in medical malpractice litigation, and the acceptance of responsibility in the absence of the causation between the physician's fault and damage. Also, this study recommends a tendency of our precedent through the comparative case method of ours and Japan.

• 철학연구
• /
• 제105권
• /
• pp.269-290
• /
• 2008

이 논문에서는 '후향적인 인과관계'를 주장하는 견해들을 크게, 자의적인 행위에 근거한 접근방법, 분석수준별 차이에 근거한 접근방법, 물리방정식에 의한 접근방법, 물리현상에 근거한 접근방법으로 나누어 고찰하고, 그 각각의 특징과 문제점들을 지적했다. 이어서 후향적인 인과성을 펼치는 어떠한 견해도 아직은 설득력 있게 받아들여지지 않고 있음을 밝혔다. 후향적인 인과관계를 펼치는 견해들이 인과성분석에서 주류는 아닐지라도, 상호조건적 동시발생적인 측면에 근거해 대칭적인 관계 속에서 인과관계를 파악하거나, 전체상적인 접근에 의거해 서로가 직접 간접으로 인과관계를 유지하는 것으로 파악할 경우는 어느 정도 논거가 선다. 특히 인과그물이나 전체상적인 측면에서 접근할 경우는 더욱 그렇다. 그러나 유용성이라는 측면에서 본다면, 후향적인 인과성고찰은 원인선행설에 비해 그 설득력이 약하다. 이런 점에서 현재로서는 결과가 원인에 앞서지 못한다는 견해가 주류를 이룰 수밖에 없다.

• 의료법학
• /
• 제7권2호
• /
• pp.179-218
• /
• 2006

To succeed the claim of medical negligence, the plaintiff should establish the medical profession's fault, and the causation between the fault and damages. The faults are judged on lege artis, which is based on expert witness. However, judges often infer the faults and causations from circumstantial evidences and patients' injuries. This presumptions depend on the law of nature(Erfahrungsgesetz). The law of nature can explain the typical development of the event. If the circumstantial evidences were in accordance with that, the faults and causations would be able to be recognized by the judges. Therefore the standards of comparison such as lege artis or the law of nature play an important role for medical negligence liabilities to be imputed to doctors or hospitals. The factual elements necessary to assume the fault is similar to those of the causation, for the concept of the fault is correlated with that of the causation. The elements include the temporal and spatial proximity between damages and defendant's medical treatments, no existence of other causations, the probability of bed results developed by the medical treatments, and so on. These enable the fault and causation to be assumed at the same times.

• 의료법학
• /
• 제8권2호
• /
• pp.195-204
• /
• 2007

It is a general principle that the plaintiff takes burden of proof about negligence and causation in a civil compensation litigation. And it is the same in a medical malpractice lawsuit. Korean courts have made diverse efforts to mitigate the plaintiff's duty to prove in medical malpractice lawsuits under the name of justice and impartiality. One of those theoretical attempt is 'presumption of causation'. The Supreme Court, since 1995, has developed a new logic for the theory of 'presumption of causation' which is characterized by a phrase "layman's common sense". The Court presumes the defendant's negligence and causation when the plaintiff alleges and proves the facts which can be pointed out and expressed by a layman with common sense. And if the defendant fails to prove that the result was caused by other fact than own medical activities, the defendant shall be defeated. I realize that this theory has problem for justice and impartiality. I would say that two fators should be considered and added to this logic. First,are defendant's acts generally belonging to gross negligence which would cause that kind of bad result? Second, is it recognized that there would be the causation generally and statistically between the cause and the result?

• 논리연구
• /
• 제18권1호
• /
• pp.133-153
• /
• 2015

김성수 교수는 최근 논문 "반사실적 인과론과 인과 구조식 접근법: 활성 경로 이론의 재검토"에서 활성 경로 이론에 대한 변호를 펼친다. 활성 경로 이론은 반사실적 인과론의 핵심적 직관을 유지하면서 '실제로 벌어진 정황'에 주목함으로써 반사실적 인과론에 제기된 반례들을 극복하고자 제시되었다. 그러나 활성 경로 이론에 대해서도 반례가 제기된 바 있다. 김성수 교수는 이 반례를 반박함으로써 활성 경로 이론에 대한 변호를 펼치는데, 본 논문에서 필자는 김성수 교수의 반박이 성공하지 못했음을 밝힌다.

• 대한인간공학회지
• /
• 제29권2호
• /
• pp.241-248
• /
• 2010

In accident analysis, it is essential to understand the causal pathways of the accident. Although numerous accident models have been developed to help analysts understand how and why an accident occurs, most of them do not include all elements related to the accident in various fields. Thus analysis of human error accidents in railway operations using these existing models may be possible, but inevitably incomplete. For a more thorough analysis of the accidents in railway operations, a more exhaustive model of accident causation is needed. This paper briefly reviews four recent accident causation models, and proposes a new model that overcomes the limitations of the existing models for the analysis of human error accidents in railway operations. In addition, the usefulness and comprehensiveness of the proposed model is briefly tested by explaining 12 railway accident cases with the model. The proposed accident causation model is expected to improve understanding of how and why an accident/incident occurs, and help prevent analysts from missing any important aspect of human error accidents in railway operations

• 철학연구
• /
• 제105권
• /
• pp.75-94
• /
• 2008

심리철학에서 수축주의(deflationism)와 비환원주의의 옹호자들은 모두 정신인과의 문제가 과장되어 있다고 주장하지만 그 정도와 이유에는 큰 차이가 있다. 수축주의자는 이 문제가 사이비 문제(a bogus problem)이기때문에 물리주의적 형이상학을 포기하고 인식론적 또는 과학적 설명에 집중해야한다고 주장한다. 이와는 대조적으로 비환원주의자들은 김재권이 제시하는 폐쇄의 원리(the principle of causal closure)와 배제의 원리(the principle of causal exclusion) 자체들을 받아들이기 때문에 - 비록 그들은 이 원리들이 수반과 함께 작용될 때 환원으로 가야하는 정당성을 제공하지는 않는다고 생각하지만 - 그것의 철학적 문제 성립에는 어느 정도 동의하지만 그 문제가 제기한 심각한 문제를 수축주의자들의 부분적 주장과 같이 수반개념으로 충분히 극복할 수 있다고 주장한다. 물론 수축주의자들은 형이상학적 주제인 수반을 물리주의자들이 인정하는 만큼 적절한 개념으로 간주하지는 않는다. 과연 수축주의자들은 무슨 근거로, 어떻게 배제논변에 의존한 정신인과의 문제를 사이비 문제라고 간주하는가? 이 논문에서 필자는 이런 다양한 의문들에 대한 비판적 검토를 하면서 현대판 심신문제인 정신인과의 문제에 대한 가장 적절한 대응이 무엇인지를 관련된 문제들의 명료화를 통해서 결정하려고 시도할 것이다.

• 의료법학
• /
• 제9권1호
• /
• pp.165-196
• /
• 2008

Recently the Supreme Court held that "in cases in which a patient suffering from a mental disorder attempts to commit suicide, fails, and then succeeds in a subsequent attempt, the following circumstances must be present in order to acknowledge reasonable causation between the negligence of the hospital with regards to taking care of the patient and the death of the patient; there must have existed negligence on the part of the hospital with regards to their failure to stop the 1stsuicide attempt, injurious aftereffects must have been caused to the patient by the1stsuicide attempt, and said aftereffects must have been the main cause for the 2nd successful suicide attemtp." This, in effect, lessens the requirements of past holdings of the Supreme Court which held that "to acknowledge reasonable causation between the negligence of the hospital and the patient that commits suicide, the patient must have experienced such severe physical and mental suffering from the previous attempt so that they could not help but choose to commit suicide". The fact that the Supreme Court did not clearly state such changes in their view on this matter should be corrected. Also, the fact that the court only held the hospital liable for damages of less than 50 million won, only calculating damages up to the point when the deceased passed, is inadequate compared to other cases and should be corrected.