• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.13 no.2
• /
• pp.377-401
• /
• 2004

Delay in the air transport occurs when passengers, baggage or cargo do not arrive at their destination at the time indicated in the contract of carriage. The causes of delay in the carriage of cargo are no reservation, lack of space, failure to load the cargo on board, loading the cargo on the wrong plane, failure to off-load the cargo at the right place, or to deliver the covering documents at the right place. The Montreal Convention of 1999 Article 19 provides that "The carrier is liable for damage occasioned by delay in the carriage by air of cargo. Nevertheless, the carrier shall not be liable for damage occasioned by delay if it proves that it and its servants and agents took all measures that could reasonably be required to avoid the damage or that it was impossible for it or them to take such measures." The Montreal Convention Article 22 provides liability limits of the carrier in case of delay for cargo. In the carriage of cargo, the liability of the carrier is limited to 17 SDR per kilogram unless a special declaration as to the value of the cargo has been made. The Montreal Convention Article 19 has shortcomings: it is silent on the duration of the liability for carriage. It does not give any indication concerning the circumstances to be taken into account in cases of delay, and about the length of delay. In conclusion, it is desirable to define the period of carriage with accuracy, and to insert the word 'unreasonable' in Article 19.

• Informatization Policy
• /
• v.30 no.1
• /
• pp.67-88
• /
• 2023

The expansion of the scope of product liability is necessary because the industrial environment has changed following the enactment of the Product Liability Act. Unlike human-coded algorithms, artificial intelligence is black-boxed according to machine learning, and even developers cannot explain the results. In particular, since the cause of the problem by artificial intelligence is unknown, the responsibility is unclear, and compensation for victims is not easy. This is because software or artificial intelligence is a non-object, and its productivity is not recognized under the Product Liability Act, which is limited to movable property. As a desperate measure, productivity may be recognized if it is stored or embedded in the medium. However, it is not reasonable to apply differently depending on the medium. The EU revise the product liability guidelines that recognize product liability when artificial intelligence is included. Although compensation for victims is the value pursued by the Product Liability Act, the essence has been overlooked by focusing on productivity. Even if an accident occurs using an artificial intelligence-adopted service, however, it is desirable to present standards according to practical risks instead of unconditionally holding product responsibility.

• Journal of the Korean Institute of Gas
• /
• v.7 no.4 s.21
• /
• pp.30-35
• /
• 2003

Product liability(PL) law imposes the liability on manufacturer or wholesaler when the product defects cause harm to consumers of the products or any other parties in their lives, bodies, or properties. In Korea, the law of product liability was enforced in July 2002. In this study the Product Liability Response System of chemical products was developed by using Failure Mode and Effect Analysis(FMEA). For a case study peformed for N,N-Dimethylethylamine. First, product information was gathered through Material Safety Data Sheet(MSDS)and which considered as an instruction manual of chemical product. And an effect caused by product defects is analyzed by FMEA to get Risk Priority Number(RPN) which is calculated by multiplying of severity, occurrence, and detection of the defects. Then hazard was estimated quantitatively by RPN.

• Fire Science and Engineering
• /
• v.33 no.6
• /
• pp.190-203
• /
• 2019

Since the amendment of the Accidental Fire Liability Act in 2009, interested parties in accidental fire liability contracts have settled issues associated with the estimation of each other's liability amounts through lawsuits. As fire accidents are complex in nature, it is difficult to distinguish between direct and additional damages caused by extended combustion while calculating liability amounts for accidental fires. Additionally, there is an increasing need for establishing and using a framework that includes validity and reliability. To establish such a framework for estimating the liability amounts in case of an accidental fire, this study suggests a novel categorization of fires to be applied to the framework. This will be organized by the subjects of the liability of accidental fires, and quantified and probabilistic processed qualitative items through the methods applied to quantification (AMEA/FTA) based on the fire statistics data published by the government and the previous researchers' research application data and results.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.69
• /
• pp.23-43
• /
• 2016

This study describes the exclusion of the seller's liability for defects in title under CISG and UCC. Through comparing two provisions, this article provides contracting parties with guidance regarding choosing governing laws and practical advice. CISG and UCC states not only the seller's liability for defects in title but also the exclusion respectively. Under two provisions, contracting parties who wish to avoid this liability may agree that the liability will not apply. Under UCC ${\S}$2-213(2), the seller's warranty can be disclaimed by specific language in the contract or by the circumstances surrounding the transaction. Although there is no express exclusion provision under CISG Article 41 and 42, Article 6 allows contracting parties to agree that they may exclude the application of the seller's liability. Both Article 42 under CISG and ${\S}$2-213(3) under UCC provide where the buyer furnishes specification to the seller. Under UCC ${\S}$2-213(3), it is the buyer's warranty to hold the seller harmless from any claims which arise from the seller complying with specification furnished by the buyer. But, under CISG Article 42, the seller's duty is excluded if the third party right or claim result from the fact that the seller has complied with specifications provided by the buyer. Therefore Article 42 does not charge the buyer with the duty, but rather limits the circumstances under which he could cause claims under Article 42. Interestingly, CISG has provisions which are absent from UCC. First, under Article 41, the seller escapes the liability if the buyer agree to take the goods subject to the third party right or claim. Second, under Article 42(2)(a), the seller is not liable if the buyer knew or could not have been unaware of the third party right or claim at the time of the conclusion of the contract.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.15
• /
• 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.

• Journal of the Korea Safety Management & Science
• /
• v.6 no.4
• /
• pp.61-81
• /
• 2004

What is the most important in articles of food is hygienic safety. Because food Is the most common thing in our everyday life, however, the importance of its hygienic safety and other many problems caused by food may be easily neglected. What is more, food is can be dangerous as much as it is directly related to human life and accidents from the same cause may have different effects on the victims according to physical and environmental differences of individuals. Thus PL action for food requires more thorough prevention and measure. Korea has been enforcing 'the Product Liability Act' since the 1/sup 1st/ of July 2002. Product Liability (PL) is liability of the manufacturer or the seller of a product to compensate for the death or injury of consumers or the loss of properties caused by the defect of the product. This study surveyed consumers' response to and the effects of the enforcement of the Product Liability Act, investigated how consumers perceived the importance of food safety and the risk of defective food based on PL standards and their experience in damage by food through a questionnaire survey, and analyzed collected data through empirical analyses (reliability analysis, factorial analysis, regression analysis and ANOVA t-test) using SPSS 10.0. Based on the results of analysis, the researcher proposed strategies for coping with the Product Liability Act in the food industry.

• Journal of the Korea Academia-Industrial cooperation Society
• /
• v.9 no.5
• /
• pp.1386-1391
• /
• 2008

The Korean Product Liability Act established the principle that a manufacturer has a duty to take care of a person who is not the customer who bought the product for him. In this instance, there is a duty to the patient for whom the product was purchased by the hospital from the pharmaceutical company. Therefore, the pharmaceutical company has the product liability for adverse reactions to the contrast medium. But the possibility for the patient to successfully sue the pharmaceutical company is quite low, because the patient needs to prove that a "defect" in the unsafe product was the cause of his injuries. And the physician or the radiological technologist can not reduce his liability risks based on the Product Liability Act. On the contrary, The has the product liability because diluting contrast medium belongs to the product category.

• Transactions of the Korean Society of Automotive Engineers
• /
• v.20 no.6
• /
• pp.92-99
• /
• 2012

It is often thought that because no-start motor vehicles cannot start an engine, a fire cannot occur for motor vehicle causes. However, although the engine cannot start up, some parts may be live with electricity if a battery is connected. If the parts have problems, a fire can occur. This study analyzed the causes of fires occurring when a motor vehicle was loaded onto a tow truck to service no-start. It is suggested that no-start motor vehicles should separate a battery terminal to prevent a fire. And this fire is related to automotive products liability.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.12 no.2
• /
• pp.65-117
• /
• 2011

This article analyzes the case (2008Da16776) which has the issue how patients have to prove causal relationship when patients claim against pharmaceutical companies alleging that patients were infected with virus due to contaminated blood products. The Supreme court held that: (1) if patients prove that they didn't have symptoms suggesting virus infection before administration of blood products, the virus infection had been confirmed after administration of blood products, and there were significant potential of contamination of the blood products with the virus, the defect in blood products or the negligence of pharmaceutical company in making blood products shall be presumed to cause the infection of the victim. (2) The pharmaceutical companies could reverse the presumption by proving the blood products were not contaminated, but the fact that the victims were treated with the blood products manufactured by other companies or had received blood transfusions is not enough to reverse the presumption. The case is the first decision whether the burden of proof about causal relationship could be reduced in pharmaceutical product liability lawsuit. Hereafter pharmaceutical product liability cases, it would be necessary to reduce the burden of proof about causal relationship in order to make substantive equality between patients and pharmaceutical companies.