• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.7
• /
• pp.205-263
• /
• 1995

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.49
• /
• pp.283-324
• /
• 2011

The purpose of this paper is to research the air waybill and the carrier's liability in respect of the carriage of cargo by air under the Montreal Convention of 1999. The Warsaw Convention for the unification of certain rules for international carriage by air 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. Under the Montreal Convention, in respect of the carriage of cargo, the air waybill shall be made out by the consignor. If, at the request of the consignor, the carrier makes it out, the carrier shall be deemed to have done so on behalf of the consignor. The air waybill shall be made out in three orignal parts. Under the Montreal Convention, the consignor shall indemnify the carrier against all damages suffered by the carrier or any other person to whom the carrier is liable, by reason of the irregularity, incorrectness or incompleteness of the particulars and statement furnished by the consignor or on its behalf. The air waybill is not a document of title or negotiable instrument. Under the Montreal Convention, the air waybill is prima facie evidence of the conclusion of the contract, of the acceptance of the cargo and of the conditions of carriage. If the carrier carries out the instructions of the consignor for the disposition of the cargo without requiring the production of the part of the air waybill, the carrier will be liable, for any damage which may be accused thereby to any person who is lawfully in possession of the part of the air waybill. Under the Montreal Convention, the carrier is liable by application of principle of strict liability for the damage sustained during the carriage of cargo by air. The carrier is liable for the destruction or loss of, or damage to cargo and delay during the carriage by air. The period of the carriage by air does not extend to any carriage by land, by sea or by inland waterway performed outside an airport. Under the Montreal Convention, the carrier's liability is limited to a sum of 17 Special Drawing Rights per kilogramme. Any provision tending to relieve the carrier of liability or to fix a lower limit than that which is laid down in this Convention shall be and void. Under the Montreal Convention, if the carrier proves that the damage was caused by the negligence or other wrongful act or omission of the person claiming compensation, or the person from whom he derives his rights, the carrier shall be wholly or partly exonerated from ist liability to the claimant to the extent that such negligence or wrongful act or omission caused the damage. Under the Montreal Convention, any action for damages, however founded, whether under this Convention or in contract or in tort or otherwise, can only be brought subject to the conditions and such limits of liability as are set out in this Convention. Under the Montreal Convention, in the case of damage the person entitled to delivery must complain to the carrier forthwith after the discovery of the damage, and at the latest, within fourteen days from the date of receipt of cargo. In the case of delay, the complaint must be made at the latest within twenty-one days from the date on which the cargo has been placed at his disposal. if no complaint is made within the times aforesaid, no action shall lie against the carrier, save in the case of fraud on its part. Under the Montreal Convention, the right to damage shall be extinguished if an action is not brought within a period of two years, reckoned from the date of arrival at the destination, or from the date on which the aircraft ought to have arrived, or from the date on which the carriage stopped. In conclusion, the Montreal Convention has main outstanding issues with respect to the carrier's liability in respect of the carriage of cargo by air as follows : The amounts of limits of the carrier's liability, the duration of the carrier's liability, and the aviation liability 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.26 no.1
• /
• pp.177-213
• /
• 2011

The purpose of this paper is to research on the liability and cases for space damage with reference to the space activity under the international space treaty and national space law of major countries. The United Nations has adopted two treaties relating to the liability for space damage as follows: the Outer Space Treaty of 1967 and the Liability Convention of 1972. Korea has enacted the Outer Space Damage Compensation Act of 2008 relating to the liability for space damages. The Outer Space Treaty of 1967 regulates the international responsibility for national activities in outer space, and the national tort liability for damage by space launching object. The Liability Convention of 1972 regulates the absolute liability by a launching state, the faulty liability by a launching state, the joint and several liability by a launching state, the person claiming for compensation, the claim method for compensation, the claim period of compensation, the claim for compensation and local remedy, the compensation amount for damage by a launching state, and the establishment of the Claims Commission. The Outer Space Damage Compensation Act of 2008 in Korea regulates the definition of space damage, the relation of the Outer Space Damage Compensation Act and the international treaty, the non-faulty liability for damage by a launching person, the concentration of liability and recourse by a launching person, the exclusion of application of the Product Liability Act, the limit amount of the liability for damage by a launching person, the cover of the liability insurance by a launching person, the measures and assistance by the government in case of occurring the space damage, and the exercise period of the claim right of compensation for damage. There are several cases with reference to the liability for damage caused by space accidents as follows: the Collision between Iridium 33 and Cosmos 2251, the Disintegration of Cosmos 954 over Canadian Territory, the Failure of Satellite Launching by Martin Marietta, and the Malfunctioning of Westar VI Satellite. In the disputes and lawsuits due to such space accidents, the problems relating to the liability for space damage have been settled by the application of absolute(strict) liability principle or faulty liability principle. The Liability Convention of 1972 should be improved as follows: the clear definition in respect of the claimer of compensation for damage, the measure in respect of the enforcement of decision by the Claims Commission. The Outer Space Damage Compensation Act of 2008 in Korea should be improved as follows: the inclusion of indirect damage into the definition of space damage, the change of the currency unit of the limit amount of liability for damage, the establishment of joint and several liability and recourse right for damage by space joint launching person, and the establishment of the Space Damage Compensation Review Commission. Korea has built the space center at Oinarodo, Goheung Province in June 2009. Korea has launched the first small launch vehicle KSLV-1 at the Naro Space Center in August 2009 and June 2010. In Korea, it will be the possibility to be occurred the problems relating to the international responsibility and the liability for space damage in the course of space activity. Accordingly the Korean government and launching organization should make the legal and systematic policy to cope with such problems.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.7 no.2
• /
• pp.9-74
• /
• 2006

Due to the awareness of their rights for medical liability and the advancement of legal principles, it becomes also not hard to find those who seek damages against hospitals, doctors and nurses for the suicide committed under the protection of psychiatric institute in Korea these days. Judgements on these kinds of cases are not enough yet, so that it may be too early to try to find principles used in these cases, however it is hardly wrong to read following things from above cases. That is, to gain the case, plaintiffs should show (1) there exists an obligation of "due care"(there is a special relation between patients and hospitals), (2) the duty is violated on the basis of the applicable standard of care, (3) whatever injures or damages are sustained are proximately caused by the breach of duty and (4) the plaintiff suffers compensable damages. To specific, whether a psychiatric institute was liable for wrong death or not depends upon the patients conditions, circumstances and the extent of the danger the patients poses to himself or herself; in short, the foreseeability of self-inflicted harm(the doctor should have or could reasonably have foreseen the patient's suicide and the doctor's negligence actually caused the suicide). In this context if a patient exhibit strong suicidal tendencies, constant observation should be required. Negligence has been found not exist, however, when a patient abruptly and unexpectedly dashes from an attendant and jumps out a window or otherwise attempts to injure himself or herself. And the standard of conduct that is required to meet the obligation of "due care" is based on what the "reasonable practitioner" would do in like circumstances. The standard is not one of excellence or superior practice; it only re quires that the physician exercise that degree of skill and care that would be expected of the average qualified practitioner practicing under like circumstances. Most of these principles have been established at cases of the U.S.A and Japan. In this article you can also find the legal organizations of medical liability and medical contacts on the suicide of patients who have psychiatric diseases under Korean negligence law.

• International conference on construction engineering and project management
• /
• 2015.10a
• /
• pp.718-719
• /
• 2015

As a recent global trend, the majority of plant projects are delivered through EPC or EPC-turnkey contracts, where a contractor's liability is more complicated because of the mega size scale and financing method. Previous researches have been lacking a practical usability for project members for liabilities of contracts. Those were focused on solving the claims or schedule calculation issues only. The objective of the present study was to develop a validation process for LDs (liquidated damages) in contractor's liabilities with various case studies and expert judgments. As summarized in this paper, the processes and tools were developed with project life cycle process. The project preparation phase includes 3 step check lists to determine the Go or No-go for projects. In progress phase, contractors should focus on the response strategies for claims with liabilities. The study concludes that those developed processes and tools will help to manage risk of LDs for the contractors in the overseas projects.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.63
• /
• pp.63-88
• /
• 2014

The culpa in contrahendo is a doctrine that "damages should be recoverable against the party whose blameworthy conduct during negotiations for a contract brought about its invalidity or prevented its perfection". In China, Chinese Civil law gradually adopted Culpa in Contrahendo under the former 'economic contract law' and the 'general rules of the civil law', then the legal system of culpa in contrahendo was formally established under Contract Law of the People's Republic of China(CLPRC) in 1999. To put it concretely, Art. 42, 43, 58 of the Chinese Civil Law expressly establishes a culpa in contrahendo liability derived from a principle of good faith governing pre-contractual negotiations. however, in general, culpa in contrahendo has been recognized a independent legal liability as distinct from contractual default liability and torts liability. This article provides a general description of the characteristics of culpa in contrahendo under Chinese Contract Law, and both theoretical issues that have arisen in Chinese academics and relevant important precedent in Chinese Courts. This article also analyzed trend of judgment on precedents that the Supreme Peoples's Court of the PRC applied culpa in contrahendo.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.15 no.2
• /
• pp.317-343
• /
• 2014

In order to account for whether a doctor should indemnify damages resulted from violation of duty of care, the fact that a doctor violated duty of care, that damages were incurred, and the link between violation of duty of care and damages incurred, respectively, should be verified. So even though a doctor violated duty of care to patients, he or she will not bear the responsibility to indemnify damages unless it is not verified. If a doctor's negligence in medical practices is assessed that obviously unfaithful medical practice far exceeds the limit of admission of a patient, it will not go against people's general perception of justice or law and order to constitute a medical malpractice itself as an illegal action that will require liabiliy for damage. However, when the limit of admission is set too low, a patient's benefit and expectation of proper medical treatment can be violated. In contrast, if the limit of admission is set high, it can leave too little room for doctors' discretion for treatments due to a bigger risk of indemnification for damages. Thus, a reasonable balance that can satisfy both benefit and expectation of patients and doctors' right to treatment is needed.

• Journal of Soil and Groundwater Environment
• /
• v.10 no.6
• /
• pp.1-9
• /
• 2005

Soil is polluted by an agricultural chemicals, the effluence of a crystal and sewage sludge, illegal discharging of waste water or waste matter and so on. Soil pollution that accompanies a groundwater and the crops contamination has a large effect on people's living. By polluters pay principle, when a soil was polluted, polluters take the responsibility of clean-up and compensation for damages. The character of the responsibility is a strict liability. When joint polluters exist in a soil pollution, they bear collective responsibility. But they are exempted from obligation in case of a natural calamity and war. The polluters who are poor contribution of pollution take a partition responsibility but it is not easy to prove that. The concerned parties of purification liability in a soil pollution are polluter, an owner or occupant of a contaminated site, and a grantee. But when we do not appoint the polluter or he cannot do a cleanup, municipal must put in effect the purification. In such a case, another parties who are related to the contamination should take upon themselves a liability. The province of responsible parties, therefore, is required to extend to an owner or operator of a facility, a carrier and lender.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.5
• /
• pp.119-169
• /
• 1993

In this article the present writers have surveyed recent cases on Warsaw Convention especially on the cases emerged in the years between 1986 to 1993. The cases before 1986 were discussed already in the book titled "Liability of International Air Carrier," written by Professor Choi, published in Seoul 1986. In this article the writers have reviewed most of the American cases and some cases from the courts of Germany, France and England. Main subjects which were discussed herein were as follows: Liability of air carriers in Warsaw Convention carriage 1. Exclusivity of the Warsaw Convention as a remedy 2. Warsaw Jurisdiction 3. The scope of the Warsaw Convention's definition of "Accident" under Article 17 of the Warsaw Convention (1) Mental anguish (2) Unusual or unexpected events 4. Adequacy of notice of the limitation of liability to passengers for injuries and death 5. Damages recoverable, punitive damages and burden of proof 6. The wilful misconduct exception; definition of wilful misconduct 7. Cargo and passenger baggage 8. Time limitation of actions After examining articles published world-wide, this article compiles and analyses recent cases involving the Warsaw Convention system. As Warsaw System is based on international convention, maintaining uniformity in interpretation is of utmost importance. Therefore, this type of study is essential for resolving air-transportation disputes in Korea. This article examines the current state and recommends the desired course for the Warsaw Convention. The writers hope that this article is helpful to the Korean courts and those in the air-transportation industry in interpreting the Warsaw Convention.

• Journal of radiological science and technology
• /
• v.30 no.4
• /
• pp.305-311
• /
• 2007

Contrast medium is a useful drug for radiological examinations and usability of it gradually increases while it has some inevitable adverse reaction and it is difficult to predict the occurrence and the degree of adverse reactions. Although the patient consented permission for the use of contrast media, the hospital could not be exempted from the responsibility for the adverse contrast media reaction. During radiological contrast media examination, the radiologist and the contrast media producer have the duty of precaution, prediction and avoid adverse results. In addition, they have reliabi lity of patient remedy for neglecting the duty. Since contrast medium are manufactured or processed as movable properties, the manufacturers are bound to the product liability if damages occur due to the defects in pharmaceuticals. In consideration of the characteristics of product liability, it is necessary to demand high degree of duty of care and diligence from producer or to reduce patient's burden of proof in a product liability lawsuit. For securing compensation ability and liability implementation, products compensation liability insurance is required for contrast medium manufacturers. In conclusion, contrast medium producer has legal liability for adverse reactions and the contract concluded with producer and hospital including legal liability will reduce liability of hospital and radiologist, patient.