• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.15 no.2
• /
• pp.123-163
• /
• 2014

As results of analyzing judicial precedents about infection in hospitals in connection with mistakes and causality in medical litigations shows that the Mitigation of Law Principles To Prove responsibility in medical litigation has not been able to play its role compared to its intended purposes. And Major sentiment from those judgments is that a mistake can't be proved only by the fact that certain infection in hospital occurred in connection with hospital infection. Therefore, the number of indirect facts to deny estimation is overwhelmingly high. Like this, especially for hospital infection which is difficult to prove indirect facts themselves to estimate mistake, major sentiment from those judgments have a problem that impute sharing of losses caused by hospital infection to patient. In accordance with the Principles of equitable and proper sharing of losses, it's required to prepare legal interpretation and theoretical methods to largely mitigate patient's responsibility to prove medical mistakes compared to other medical litigations in connection with existing Mitigation of Law Principles To Prove responsibility and conventional theory of estimation. In connection with this, the results of review that duty of safety management in hospital infection cases can be the base of conversion of proving responsibility, the duty that prevent hospital infection, corresponding the duty of safety management in hospital infection is not conventional duty of safety management based on duty of good faith but secondary obligation of medical contract. The breach of duty preventing hospital infection is the violation of medical contract, but there is no logical necessity that convert proving responsibility from the obligation of contract itself. Therefore, the duty of preventing hospital infection from the obligation of medical contract, corresponding the duty of safety management in hospital infection cases cannot be the base of conversion of proving responsibility alone. But, it's still required to conversion of proving responsibility in hospital infection, we need further studies on cases of Germany which applies legal estimation of proving responsibilities in hospital infection.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.16 no.2
• /
• pp.159-193
• /
• 2015

Owing to causes such as population aging, increased use of various medical devices, long-term hospitalization of various patients with reduced immune function such as cancer, diabetes, and organ transplant patients, and the growing size of hospitals, hospital infections are continuing to increase. As seen in the MERS crisis of 2015, hospital infections have become a social and national problem. In order to prevent damage due to such hospital infections, it is necessary to first strictly implement measures to prevent hospital infections, while, on the other hand, providing proper relief of damage suffered due to hospital infections. However, the mainstream attitude of judicial precedents relating to hospital infection cases has been judged to in fact shift responsibility over damages due to hospital infections on the patient. In light of the philosophy of the damage compensation system, whose guiding principle if the fair and proper apportionment of damages, there is a need to seek means of drastically relaxing the burden of proof on the patient's side relative to conventional legal principles for relaxing the burden of proof, or the theory of de facto estimation. In relation to such need, the German civil code (Burgerliches Gesetzbuch), which defines contracts of medical treatment as typical contracts under the civil code, and has presumption of negligence provisions stipulating that, in cases such as hospital infections which were completely under the control of the medical care providers, if risks in general medical treatment have been realized which cause violations of the life, body, or health of patients, error on the part of the person providing medical care is presumed, was examined. Contracts of medical treatment are entered into very frequently and broadly in the everyday lives of the general public, with various disputes owing thereto arising. Therefore, it is necessary to, by defining contracts of medical treatment as typical contracts under the civil code, regulate the content of said contracts, as well as the proof of burden when disputes arise. If stipulations in the civil code are premature as of yet, an option may be to regulate through a special act, as is the case with France. In the case of hospital infection cases, it is thought that 'legal presumption of negligence' relating to 'negligence in the occurrence of hospital infections,' which will create a state close to equality of arms, will aid the resolution of the realistic issue of the de facto impossibility of remedying damages occurring due to negligence in the process of occurrence of hospital infections. Also, even if negligence is presumed by law, as the patient side is burdened with proving the causal relationships, such drastic confusion as would occur if the medical care provider side is found fully liable if a hospital infection occurs may be avoided. It is thought that, alongside such efforts, social insurance policy must be improved so as to cover the expenses of medical institutions having strictly implemented efforts to prevent hospital infections in the event that they have suffered damages due to a hospital infection accident, and that close future research and examination into this matter will be required.