• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.26 no.4
• /
• pp.129-149
• /
• 2016

Medical dispute means the dispute between the hospital and the patient due to a medical accident. In general, medical accidents must be in accordance with the terms that are used in the medical dispute adjustment method stated in Article 2 (definition). In relation to this, there is a need to discuss an efficient operation scheme for Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) in medical disputes. In addition, it is necessary to look at issues of civil liability and criminal liability. In particular, in the consumer dispute arbitration committee, there is a case to make a "decision not to adjust" in aggressive intervention in the process of conflict resolution. The medical staff, on the basis of its "decision," can use this as a proven material for civil and criminal cases. This is rather upon the determination of the consumer council as a typical side effect to defend the user's perspective. This is the "decision" as was expressed from an order, "not adjusted." It is also determined to be easy and clearly timely. In the medical litigation, it is requesting the burden of proof of a patient's cause-and-effect relationship with the doctors committing negligence and medical malpractice. This seems to require the promotion of legislation in the direction to reduce future cases. It is determined that the burden of proof of medical accidents must be improved. The institution receiving the medical accident should prevent a closure report. Further, it is necessary to limit the transition to a franchise point. In this paper, we understand the problems of the current medical dispute resolution system, trying to establish a medical dispute resolution system desirable through an efficient alternative. In addition, it wants help in the protection and realization in medical consumers' and patients' rights. The relevant authorities will take advantage of these measures. After all, this could contribute to the system for a smooth resolution of a medical dispute.

• Journal of Korea Port Economic Association
• /
• v.22 no.3
• /
• pp.23-41
• /
• 2006

The objective of this study is to discuss damage to cargo caused by shipper's Liability. an analysis of the excepted perils of the carriers and the scope of marine insurance coverage reveals that the excepted perils of the carrier are covered by the most part by marine insurance. however damage to cargo caused by shipper's fault remains uncovered. Damage to cargo by insufficient packing is caused by the cargo owner's error or negligence, thus both the underwriter and the marine carrier are exmpted from responsibility. but a problem aries from the fact that there is no objective standard for full packaging. In order to solve these problems, it is required to specify the method of packaging for certain goods when making an individual agreement, so that the owner can be exmpted from responsibility for packaging conformed to the pertinent article.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.15 no.1
• /
• pp.263-302
• /
• 2014

The court handed down meaningful rulings related to medical sectors in 2013. This paper presents the ruling that the care workers could be the performance assistants of the care-giving service although the duties of care worker are not included in the liability stipulated in the medical contract signed with the hospital for reason of clear distinction of duties between care workers and nurses within the hospital in connection with the contract which was entered into between the hospital and patients. In relation to negligence and causal relationship, the court recognized medical negligence associated with the failure to detect the brain tumor due to the negligent interpretation of MRI findings while rejecting the causal relationship with consequential cerebral hemorrhage. The court also recognized negligence based on the observation on the grounds of inadequate medical records in a case involving the hypoxic brain damage caused during the cosmetic surgery. In terms of the scope of compensation for damages, this paper presents the ruling that the compensation should be estimated based on causal relationship only in case the breach of the 'obligation of explanation' is recognized, however rejecting the reparation for de factor property damages in the form of compensation, and the ruling that the lawsuit could be instituted in case that the damages exceeded the agreed scope despite the agreement that the hospital would not be held responsible for any aftereffects of surgery from the standpoint of lawsuit, along with the ruling that recognized the daily net income by reflecting the unique circumstances faced by individual students of Korean National Police University and artists of Western painting. Many rulings were handed down with respect to medical certificate, prescription, etc., in 2013. This paper introduced the ruling which mentioned the scope of medical certificate, the ruling that related to whether the diagnosis over the phone at the issuance of prescription could constitute the direct diagnosis of patient, along with the ruling that required the medical certificate to be generated in the name of doctor who diagnosed the patients, and the ruling which proclaimed that it would constitute the breach of Medical Act if the prescription was issued to the patients who were not diagnosed. Moreover, this paper also introduced the ruling that related to whether the National Health Insurance Service could make claim to the hospitals for the reimbursement of the health insurance money paid to pharmacies based on the prescription in the event that the hospitals provided prescription of drugs to outpatients in violation of the laws and regulations.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.11 no.1
• /
• pp.331-393
• /
• 2010

Psychiatrists who treat violent or potentially violent patients may be sue for failure to control aggressive outpatients and for the discharge of violent inpatients. Psychiatrists may be sued for failing to protect society from the violent acts of their patients if it was reasonable for the psychiatrists to have known or should have known about the patient's violent tendencies and if the psychiatrists could have done something that could have safeguarded in public. The courts of a number of jurisdictions have imposed a duty to protect the potential victims of a third party on persons or institutions with a special relationship to that party. In the landmark case of Tarasoff v Regents of University of California, the California Supreme Court held that the special relationship between a psychotherapist and a patient imposes on the therapist a duty to act reasonably to protect the foreseeable victims of the patient. Under Tarasoff, when a therapist has determined, or under applicable professional standards should determine, that a patient poses a serious threat of violence to another, he incurs an obligation to use reasonable care to protect the intended victim against such danger. In addition to a Tarasoff type of action based on a duty to warn or protect foreseeable victims of psychiatric outpatients, courts have also imposed liability on mental health care providers based on their custody of patients known to have violent propensities. The legal duty in such a case has been stated to be that where the course of treatment of a mental patient involves an exercise of "control" over him by a physician who knows or should know that the patient is likely to cause bodily harm to others, an independent duty arises from that relationship and falls on the physician to exercise that control with such reasonable care as to prevent harm to others at the hands of the patient. After going through a period of transition, from McIntosh, Thompson and Brady case, finally, the narrow rule of requiring a specific or foreseeable threat of violence against a specific or identifiable victim is the standard threshold or trigger element in the majority of states. Judgements on these kinds of cases are not enough yet in Korea, so that it may be too early to try find principles in these cases, however it is hardly wrong to read the same reasons of Tarasoff in the judgements of Korea district courts. To specific, whether a psychiatric institute was liable for violent behavior toward others depends upon the patients conditions, circumstances and the extent of the danger the patients poses to others; in short, the foreseeability of a specific or identifiable victim. In this context if a patient exhibit strong violent behavior toward others, constant observation should be required. Negligence has been found not exist, however, when a patient abruptly and unexpectedly attack others or unidentifiable victim. 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 requires that the physician exercise that degree of skill and care that would be expected of the average qualified practitioner practicing under like circumstances. All these principles have been established in cases of the U.S.A and Japan. In this article you can find the reasons which you can use for psychotherapist's liability for failure to protect third person in Korea as practitioner.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.19 no.2
• /
• pp.3-40
• /
• 2018

Conventionally, there were few cases in which a medical accident became a criminal case in Japan. However, after the serious malpractice such as the Yokohama City University Hospital case, prosecutors came to be less hesitant to prosecute a malpractice. In a medical accident, the attribution of the responsibilities among medical personnel becomes one important element of the proof of negligence. The Supreme Court concluded that, when the attribution of the responsibilities is not established among medical personnel to confirm the identity of the patient like the Yokohama City University Hospital case, all the personnel who were involved bear the responsibilities to identify the patient. For serious cases which requireut most carefulness fortreatment such as the Saitama Medical University Hospital case, not only the chief physician in charge of the case concerned but also the director of the branch at the university hospital bear the responsibilities to confirm the treatment policy of the case. After the acquittal of the Ohno Hospital case, the voice demanding more prudent prosecution of malpractices has become stronger than before. Meanwhile, Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare introduced Medical Accidents Investigation System for the prevention of medical accident and, has reinforced the third party inspection of medical accidents.

• Journal of Navigation and Port Research
• /
• v.37 no.6
• /
• pp.617-625
• /
• 2013

"Sale and purchase brokers" are independent contractors who act as agents for principals intending to seller or buy ships in English Maritime Law. The essential feature is that legal position of shipbroker is largely one of agency. They can be obtained by a study of the Lloyd's Register or the equivalent registers of other Classification Societies, the American Bureau of Shipping and Korean Registers. Such a broker is of valuable assistance to the prospective seller or purchaser. And the broker's liability normally arises in the context of a contract. But, expressed in general terms, those contractual obligations are, in absence of contrary agreement, to act with reasonable care and skilled to obtain the cover requested by his client not to guarantee that such will be concluded and to ensure that the scope of the policy, its essential terms and relevant exclusions are made known to the insured. Acting in this professional capacity, the broker's liability are such that the facts upon which an action for breach of contract may be based may also found an action for the trot of negligence provided that there is shown to be the necessary 'assumption of responsibility' by the broker conveyed directly or indirectly to the insured. This thesis deals with liability of S&P Brokers, the legal problems of ship broking, commission, conflicts of interest and secret commissions in English Maritime Law and the Cases.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.30 no.2
• /
• pp.279-310
• /
• 2015

The Montreal Convention is an agreement that governs the liability of air carriers for injury and death to passengers travelling internationally by air. The Montreal Convention serves as the exclusive legal framework for victims and survivors seeking compensation for injuries or death arising from accidents involving international air travel. The Montreal Convention sets monetary liability caps on damages in order to promote the financial stability of the international airline transport industry and protect the industry from exorbitant damages awards in courts that would inevitably bankrupt an airline. The Convention allows a litigant suing under the Convention to avoid the liability caps in instances where the airline's culpability for the injury or death is the direct result of negligence, another wrongful act, or an omission of the airline or its agents. The Montreal Convention identifies specific locations as appropriate venues to advance claims for litigants seeking compensation. These venues are closely tied to either the carrier's business operations or the passenger's domicile. In March 2015, in an act of suicide stemming from reactive depression, the co-pilot of Germanwings flight 9525 intentionally crashed the aircraft into the French Alps killing the passengers and the remaining crew. Subsequent to the crash, there were media reports that Lufthansa made varying settlement offers to families of the passengers who died aboard the flight ranging from $8,300 USD to $4.5 Million USD depending on the passengers' citizenship. The unverified offers by Lufthansa prompted outcries from the families of the decedent passengers that they would institute suit against the airline in a more plaintiff friendly jurisdiction such as the United States. The first part of this article accomplishes two goals. First, it examines the Montreal Convention's venue requirement along with an overview of the recoverable damages from countries comprising the citizenship of the passengers who were not American. The intentional crash of Germanwings flight 9525 by its First Officer encompasses the possibility that Lufthansa may be exposed to unlimited compensatory damages beyond the liability caps contained in the Convention. The second part of this article explores the application of the Convention's liability limits to the Germanwings flight to demonstrate that the likelihood of escaping the liability limits is slim.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.22 no.2
• /
• pp.109-133
• /
• 2007

The legal labyrinth through which we have just walked is one in which even a highly proficient lawyer could easily become lost. Warsaw Convention's original objective of uniformity of private international aviation liability law has been eroded as the world community ha attempted again to address perceived problems. Efforts to create simplicity and certainty of recovery actually may have created less of both. In any particular case, the issue of which international convention, intercarrier agreement or national law to apply will likely be inconsistent with other decisions. The law has evolved faster for some nations, and slower for others. Under the Warsaw Convention of 1929, strict liability is imposed on the air carrier for damage, loss, or destruction of cargo, luggage, or goods sustained either: (1) during carriage in air, which is comprised of the period during which cargo is 'in charge of the carrier (a) within an aerodrome, (b) on board the aircraft, or (c) in any place if the aircraft lands outside an aerodrome; or (2) as a result of delay. By 2007, 151 nations had ratified the original Warsaw Convention, 136 nations had ratified the Hague Protocol, 84 had ratified the Guadalajara Protocol, and 53 nations had ratified Montreal Protocol No.4, all of which have entered into force. In November 2003, the Montreal Convention of 1999 entered into force. Several airlines have embraced the Montreal Agreement or the IATA Intercarrier Agreements. Only seven nations had ratified the moribund Guatemala City Protocol. Meanwhile, the highly influential U.S. Second Circuit has rendered an opinion that no treaty on the subject was in force at all unless both affected nations had ratified the identical convention, leaving some cases to fall between the cracks into the arena of common law. Moreover, in the United States, a surface transportation movement prior or subsequent to the air movement may, depending upon the facts, be subject to Warsaw, or to common law. At present, International private air law regime can be described as a "situation of utter chaos" in which "even legal advisers and judges are confused." The net result of this barnacle-like layering of international and domestic rules, standards, agreements, and criteria in the elimination of legal simplicity and the substitution in its stead of complexity and commercial uncertainty, which manifestly can not inure to the efficient and economical flow of world trade. All this makes a strong case for universal ratification of the Montreal Convention, which will supersede the Warsaw Convention and its various reformulations. Now that the Montreal Convention has entered into force, the insurance community may press the airlines to embrace it, which in turn may encourage the world's governments to ratify it. Under the Montreal Convention, the common law defence is available to the carrier even when it was not the sole cause of the loss or damage, again making way for the application of comparative fault principle. Hopefully, the recent entry into force of the Montreal Convention of 1999 will re-establish the international legal uniformity the Warsaw Convention of 1929 sought to achieve, though far a transitional period at least, the courts of different nations will be applying different legal regimes.

• Korean Journal of Clinical Pharmacy
• /
• v.18 no.1
• /
• pp.18-27
• /
• 2008

This study investigated social relief schemes for serious adverse drug reactions in foreign countries and deduced lessons and implications for Korea to implement the scheme. A social relief scheme for serious adverse drug reactions provides reliefs for diseases and such health effects as disabilities or deaths that were caused by adverse reactions to pharmaceuticals prescribed at hospitals and clinics as well as those purchased at pharmacies notwithstanding their proper use. The US and the UK do not have specific relief schemes for adverse drug reactions but apply rules of strict liability or negligence. New Zealand and Nordic countries provide no-fault compensation schemes for health effects or injuries caused by medical treatments or medicinal products. Japan and Taiwan have operated the schemes since 1980 and 2000, respectively. In designing the scheme in Korea, we suggested that cases eligible for relief be confined to serious adverse reactions such as death or disability and then extended to diseases. It is desirable to encourage the reporting system of adverse drug reactions and quality use of medicines for the relief scheme to work efficiently.

• 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.