• 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.

• Journal of the Korean Society of Safety
• /
• v.16 no.4
• /
• pp.188-193
• /
• 2001

From July 1st 2002, the Product Liability Act will be efficacious in Korea, and its influence will be prevalent over all industrial folds. However, little attention has been paid to the Act and its influence in the area of Industrial Safety. Therefore, this paper aimed to call the people's attention to them, and to suggest some points for counterplans in that n As for counterplans to the Product Liability, there are two different approaches - Product Liability Prevention (PLP) and Product Liability Defense(PLD). Between them, PLP is more safety-oriented approach, and especially Product Safety(PS) will be the core of it. Related with this, it was noted that productive goods which are utilized as productive materials or tools in the later process or industries could be troublesome when the Act is efficacious. As a solution, the necessity of cooperation among manufacturing plants belong to the similar industry, and of development of qualitative techniques applicable to analyses of consumers behavior was emphasized. Ant the interest and participation of Human Behavioral Scientists, Ergonomists as well as Consumer Psychologists were called upon. Also, it was suggested that an integrative approach including administrative or governmental management system for industrial goods should be developed.

• 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 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 Safety Management & Science
• /
• v.7 no.3
• /
• pp.109-120
• /
• 2005

A company is liable for its products and has the responsibility to make good on any loss or damage incurred by the user of its product. The purpose of the Product Liability Act(PLA) is to protect consumers against damage caused by defective products, and contribute to the safety of the citizen's life and the sound development of the national economy by regulating the liability of manufacturers, etc. for damages caused by the defectiveness of their products. In this study, the cognition levels of consumers and producers for PLA were surveyed. The cognition levels of four factors of acknowledgement, comprehension, necessity and impact for PLA were assessed. The results were as follows : i) Acknowledgement and comprehension levels of consumer were assessed low but they assessed necessity and impact of PLA high; ii) Producers assessed necessity and impact of PLA higher than their acknowledgement and comprehension levels; iii) Overall cognition levels of producers were higher than those of consumers.

• 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.21 no.3
• /
• pp.77-116
• /
• 2020

The use of drugs that reflect the experiences and achievements of modern science has given human being the benefits of treating diseases and improving health conditions. However, in addition to the benefits of those, medicines have inherently inevitable adverse reactions. Many countries are taking measures such as market entry regulations or post-marketing surveillance to minimize damage caused by drug side effects, but the occurrence of side effects cannot be eliminated. Although the damage is force majeure, in some cases, the doctor who prescribed the drug or the pharmacist who administered the drug may have to compensate for the damage. The liability depends on whether the side effects were known in advance, the type of medicine, etc. On the other hand, in some cases, drug manufacturer may have to take liability for the side effect itself. As it is not easy for victims to be compensated for damages in those cases, many countries, including Korea, are setting to protect victims through the Product Liability Act. Drugs are also one of the product, so liability set by the Product Liability Act may apply. Even before the enactment and enforcement of the Product Liability Act, damage caused by drug has occurred. To resolve them, precedents have developed case law, which have many similarities with the Product Liability Act, but also have differences. Damage caused by drug manufactured prior to the enforcement of the Product Liability Act may occur in the future. In this context, the legal principles of the case laws will remain valid and be applied. This is an important reason to review the case law of precedents.

• 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.

• Product Safety
• /
• s.115
• /
• pp.50-52
• /
• 2003

• Product Safety
• /
• s.105
• /
• pp.44-46
• /
• 2002