• Korea Trade Review
• /
• v.44 no.6
• /
• pp.135-150
• /
• 2019

Under the Manufacturing Liability Act, consumers want to be protected from manufacturers by mitigating burden of proof as an important target to be protected. However, due to the complexity of the product, it is very difficult for consumers to prove defects from the manufacturing defect. This situation has led to a major revision of the Manufacturing Liability Act, which mitigates the burden of proof of consumers by applying fruitless liability. The Manufacturing Liability Act is comparable to the U.S., which has strong consumer rights and is protected by the Manufacturing Liability Act. The burden of proof can be regarded as the most necessary content for consumers within the manufacturing product liability law when responding to manufacturing defects. The U.S. intends to provide implications for achieving consumer protection in Korea's Manufacturing Liability Act by imitating the U.S. based on the burden of proof. Case comparison regarding burden of proof can be conducted based on various criteria, including criteria for each product and key features for determining the importance of the manufacturing product liability law. The Act on the Responsibility of Korean Manufacturing Products for the Protection of Consumers was developed based on the assessment criteria, and a remedy was proposed to protect consumers who suffered from manufacturing defects.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.7 no.2
• /
• pp.113-136
• /
• 2006

In recent years, as well as the other countries, medical dispute cases increase continuously in China. one of the reason that medical cases increase rapidly like this is after reformation and opening people's sense of independence, law and right come to be high, but a theoretical study about medical malpractice liability is insufficient and there is deficiency at legislation from 1986 civil law general rule is carried out in Chinese. but it is difficulty to deal with those more and more complicated medical dispute only according to the law above. so in 2001 The Chinese Supreme Court established the judicial construction about civil litigation evidence which regulated the shift of the burden of proof of medical malpractice and the relation of cause and effect from the plaintiffs to the defendants. in 2002 the State Council made out Incident of Malpractice Processing Rule. but many scholar pointed out the problem in it. on the other side, according to Chinese Contract Law parties could choose contractual or tort liability to prosecute. but because of the judicial construction above majority of people asked tort liability. of course there are some cases asking contractual liability. then this paper aim at analysis of the Chinese medical malpractice liability, especially of the problems about the subject of responsibility, burden of proof and scope of responsibility.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.71
• /
• pp.147-170
• /
• 2016

International maritime law conventions concerned with cargo liabilities have sought to achieve solutions which will be acceptable to a wide range of states. The Rotterdam Rules was approved by the UN Assembly on 11 December 2008. The Rotterdam Rules are intended to replace The Hague and Hamburg Rules. This paper is comparing The Rotterdam Rules with The Hague and Hamburg Rules for the carrier' liabilities and exceptions in order to find carrier' liability System, the burden of proof and exceptions in the International maritime Rules. The purpose of this paper is considering the carrier's principal recourse for defending himself inmost cargo claims. The first area analyze the transfer of carrier's fundamental Liability system in the International Rules. The second is the matter on the appointment of proof in order to establish liability or to be relieve of liability. And the third is the change of the carrier's possible exclusions from liability in the International maritime Rules. From the result of the said analysis, my paper suggests differences of the exclusions in the Rotterdam Rules comparing with the Hague and Hamburg Rules, and features of the Rotterdam Rules appling exceptions on the basis of the Hague and Hamburg Rules with regard to carrier's liability and burden of proof. The former is the inclusion of three exclusions, the deleted natural fault, and The provision making the carrier responsible for the acts of its servants or agents in the 'fire on the ship' of the Rotterdam Rules. The latter is deleting the principle of overriding obligation related to carrier's obligation of seaworthiness in the Rotterdam Rules, the burden of proof being diverted from the carrier to the carrier and the shipper in the cargo damage caused by two factors(one for which the carrier was liable and the other for which it was excusable) in the new rules.

• 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.

• Korea Trade Review
• /
• v.43 no.3
• /
• pp.101-124
• /
• 2018

After the establishment of the Korean Product Liability Act, a new clause on the burden of proof has been added and is being revised to meet the purpose of consumer protection. Article 3(2) of the new clause stipulates a provision for estimating a causal relationship when proving indirect facts to alleviate burden of proof. While consumer rights are increasing and public attention is drawn to consumer issues, problems are still emerging. In order to solve the problem, the U.S. Product Liability Act, which has strong consumer rights, was examined to describe the direction in which Korea's Product Liability Act should proceed in terms of consumer protection. The results of the comparative analysis show that the US has expanded the concept of strict liability in terms of rigorous liability, consumer dispute resolution, provable possibility, and litigation accessibility, The consumer dispute settlement system has thoroughly protected consumers by operating educational and systemic consumer ADR system. As for the possibility of proving, Korea has three provenances, and the United States has one. In the United States, where consumer lawsuits are frequent, lawsuits are more accessible than those in Korea, where the party responsible for proving is turned into a manufacturer and responsible for proving the case. This study focuses on consumer protection and provides implications for Korean product liability law.

• 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 Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.11 no.1
• /
• pp.59-84
• /
• 2010

Medical practice is characterized by various physiological response and uncapacity of prediction, therefore when medical accident occur it's hard to prove medical professionals' mistake. Though medical accident by medical professionals' mistake will be compensated anyhow, about irresistible medical accidents, no one should be not bound to compensate, victims get into very difficult situation. So, the nation don't negligent irresistible medical accidents but compensate anyway. As in the past, to the legal principle's constitution of irresistible medical accidents, theory of liability without fault was adapted, and it was said this theory was illogical in theory of liability with fault. But the subject of compensation to irresistible medical accidents is nation, nation don't participate in medical treatment therefore there is no room to occur mistake. And it is not reasonable to regard medical agency as a truster of public service, to cast to it responsibility of medical accidents. The problem of compensation to irresistible medical accidents is understood under the theory of social compensation. Social compensation is consisted of compensation to sacrifice and contribution to nation and society and compensation to sacrifice revealed under danger, the compensation to irresistible medical accidents belongs to the latter. This is near to concept of relief, is applied to national compensation system supplementarily, and compensation have no option but to compensate minimum. And there are not relation between national compensation system of irresistible medical accidents and proof liability transposition and theory of liability with out fault, merely in side of sharing responsibility burden between medical treater and victim, it is reasonable to discuss transportation of proof liability and compulsive liability insurance together.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.40
• /
• pp.97-144
• /
• 2008

The purpose of this paper is to review the text of national legislation relating to the carrier's liability in respect of the carriage of passengers, baggage and cargo by air in major states such as United Kingdom, Germany, France, Canada, Russia and China, and to compare the air carrier's liability under the national legislations of above states with them under the Warsaw System relating to the international carriage by air. Also this paper reviews the text of the draft legislation relating to the carrier's liability in respect of the carriage by air in Korea. The Warsaw Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules Relating to International Carriage was adopted in 1929. In 1999, the ICAO adopted the Montreal Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air vastly modernizing the unification of private air law. The Montreal Convention replaced the instruments of the “Warsaw System”, and came into force on 4 November 2003. The Montreal Convention is not only an international convention. It has also exercised a considerable influence on national legislation. A the Convention, or certain of its principles, with the object of regulating their national air transport. The main feature of the liability regime of the air carrier under the Montreal Convention is the two-tier liability system for death or injury of the passenger with strict liability up to 100,000 SDR and presumptive liability with a reversed burden of proof without any limit above that threshold. The principles of the liability of the air carrier under the Montreal Convention have been adopted into national legislations by the United Kingdom, Germany, France, Canada, Russia and China. Now the Ministry of Justice of Korea is proceeding to make a new national legislation relating to the liability of the air carrier in respect of the carriage by air. The draft legislation of the Part VI the Carriage by Air of the Commercial Code of Korea has adopted the main principles of the liability of the air carrier under the Montreal Convention. In conclusion, the national legislation relating to the liability of the air carrier in Korea will contribute to settle efficiently the dispute on the carrier's liability in respect of the carriage of passengers, baggage and cargo by air.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.9 no.1
• /
• pp.9-56
• /
• 2008

The medical practice does not always get a satisfatory result since the disease progress of patients are depended on patients' physical constitution and the doctors cannot control the outcomes about patients' physiological and biological reaction after the treatment. Moreover, the medical practice may bring wrong result fatalistically because of the unpredictablility of life. To demand for compensation of the damage to the doctors about these wrong result, the patient side holds the burden of proof that is between medical practice and demage, and there is damage from doctor's malpractice according to the accepted theory about the fundamental principle of distribution of the burden of proof. This falls not only under the liability of Tort Law, but also liability of Contract Law. However, the patient may be in difficult situation to prove the malpractice of doctors since he or she cannot recognize the facts because he or she was in unconscious while the medical practice was conducted, or they cannot judge precisely even though they recognize the facts. Nevertheless, the lawsuits against medical malpractice are the field that never achieves the equality of arms since the most of the evidence belong to the doctor's side. Hence, to maintain the principle of the equality of arms under the constitution, the theory leads to alleviate the burden of proof that patients hold. However, the doctors cannot be asked for the burden of proof that they conduct medical practice without errors. Because the doctors may experience difficulty to prove their innocence as the patients because of the unique characteristic that medical practices have. Therefore, the methods of the alleviation of the patient's burden of proof should have the equality of arms and the equal opportunity between the patients and the doctors with the evaluation of the justifiable interest from both the patients and the doctors. As the methods of the alleviation of the burden of proof, the alleviation of the demands and the degree of the burden of proof or resolutely the conversion of the burden may be considered. However, Recognizing the exception from general principle with converting the burden of proof is not proper in principle because the doctors may experience difficulty of the proof as the patients may have. If the difficulty of proof can be resolved by alleviating of the demands and the degree of the burden of proof, it is more desirable resolution rather than converting the burden of proof.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.15 no.1
• /
• pp.83-122
• /
• 2014

Compared with medical cases and health care law from other countries there has been a lot of progress on medical law, especially on medical precedents in Korea. However, in recent years, medical precedents tend to reflect a realistic position of health care providers, rather than normative position of the victim. The burden of proof to prove strict liability is given to patients in civil law suits by courts, patients generally has the burden of proof. The rate of claims to prove the negligence of medical malpractice is falling significantly. Even if the error is acknowledged, it is not enough to get right to be relief for patients by increasing limitations of liability or ratio of patient's own negligence. Compensation fee is included in medical fees and risk of medical malpractice actions contributes ultimately to a health care consumer. In conclusion, author represents a major the new upgrade of above mentioned problem. By advising that court should assess actively for the perspective of victim for medical negligence we will be able to exercise remedies of patients' rights and to prevent recurring medical accidents and also contribute to medical advances.