• 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.

• Journal of the Korean Society for Aviation and Aeronautics
• /
• v.12 no.3
• /
• pp.41-63
• /
• 2004

The area covered by product liability in broadest sense is so vast that an attempt to analyse all its impact on the aviation world risk. Every effort has been made to confine our review of subject a closely as possible to its influence on aircraft manufacturers, airlines and passengers, in spite of strong connections with other spheres of commercial. Product Liability in aviation is the liability of aircraft's manufacturer, processor or non-manufacturing seller for injury to the person or property of a buyer or third party caused by a product which has been sold. Here-in a product is aircraft, third party is passengers who suffered damage by defective design, defective construction, inadequate instructions for handling in aircraft. Whenever a product turns out to be defective after it has been sold, there are under Anglo-American law three remedies available against the aircraft's manufacturer (1) liability for negligence (2) breach of warranty (3) strict liability in tort. There are Under continental law Three remedies available against the aircraft's manufacturer (1) liability for defective warranty (2) liability for non-fulfillment of obligation (3) liability in tort. It is worth pointing out here an action for breach of warranty or for defective warranty, for non-fulfillment of obligation is available only to direct purchaser on the basis of his contract with the aircraft's manufacturer, which of course weakness its range and effectiveness. An action for tort offers the advantage of being available also to third parties who have acquired the defective product at a later stage. In tort, obligations are constituted not only by contract, but also by stature and common law. In conclusion, There in no difference in principle of law. In conclusion I would like to make few suggestions regarding the product liability for aircraft's manufacturer. Firstly, current general product liability code does not specify whether government offices(e.g. FAA) inspector conducted the inspection and auditory certificate can qualify as conclusive legal evidence. These need to be clarified. Secondly, because Korea is gaining potential of becoming aircraft's manufacturer through co-manufacturing and subcontracting-manufacturing with the US and independent production, there needs legislation that can harmonize the protection of both aircraft's manufacturers and their injured parties. Since Korea is in primary stage of aviation industry, considerate policy cannot be overlooked for its protection and promotion. Thirdly, because aircraft manufacturers are risking restitution like air-carriers whose scope of restitution have widened to strict and unlimited liability, there needs importation of mandatory liability insurance and national warranty into the product liability for aircraft's manufacturers. Fourthly, there needs domestic legislation of air transportation law that clearly regulates overall legal relationship in air transportation such as carrier & aircraft manufacturer's liability, and aviation insurance.

• Proceedings of the Safety Management and Science Conference
• /
• 2001.05a
• /
• pp.235-239
• /
• 2001

The purpose of this study is to develop an insurance system for product quality liability(PQL) by reviewing some legal issues concerning the product liability It is concluded that the purpose and the function of PQL insurance have to be considered with robust experience data for the life of product, quality system of the company, size of company, the number and amount of products produced by a company and the type of company etc. And this article reviews some problems of policy including the possibility of anti-selection and reverse selection.

• Journal of Applied Reliability
• /
• v.2 no.2
• /
• pp.99-112
• /
• 2002

Risk financing is defined as the methods applied to fund risk treatment and the financial consequences of risk. It is a major component of the transfer of risk and the retention of risk which are, in turn, parts of the risk treatment process. This study applied the general guidelines on risk financing to product liability risk. Product liability risk occurs when potential defects in the process of design, production, and distribution lead to accidents resulting in fatal, financial, and environmental loss. Risk on product liability may be financed in many different ways, each of which may be used singularly or in combination. The most popular and recommendable way suggested in the guidelines is the retention or use of reserves, transfer, credit or insurance.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.5
• /
• pp.101-118
• /
• 1993

Generally there is no law and liability system which applies particulary to commercial space ventures. There are several international treaties and national statutes which deal with space ventures, but their impact on the liability of commercial space ventures has not been significant. Every state law in the United States will impose both tort and contract liability on those responsible for injuries or losses caused by defective products or by services performed negligently. As with the providers of other products and services, those who participate in commercial space ventures have exposure to liability in both tort and contract which is limited to the extent of the resulting damage The manufacturer of a small and cheap component which caused a satellite to fail to reach orbit or to operate nominally has the same exposure to liability as the provider of launch vehicle or the manufacturer of satellite into which the component was incorporaded. Considering the enormity of losses which may result from launch failure or satellite failure, those participated in commercial space ventures will do their best to limit their exposure to liability by contract to the extent permitted by law. In most states of the United States, contracts which limit or disclaim the liability are enforceable with respect to claims for losses or damage to property if they are drafted in compliance with the requirements of the applicable law. In California an attempt to disclaim the liability for one's own negligence will be enforceable only if the contract states explicitly that the parties intend to have the disclaimer apply to negligence claims. Most state laws of the United States will refuse to enforce contracts which attempt to disclaim the liability for gross negligence on public policy grounds. However, the public policy which favoured disclaiming the liability as to gross negligence for providers of launch services was pronounced by the United States Congress in the 1988 Amendments to the 1984 Commercial Space Launch Act. To extend the disclaimer of liability to remote purchasers, the contract of resale should state expressly that the disclaimer applies for the benefit of all contractors and subcontractors who participated in producing the product. This situation may occur when the purchaser of a satellite which has failed to reach orbit has not contracted directly with the provider of launch services. Contracts for launch services usually contain cross-waiver of liability clauses by which each participant in the launch agrees to be responsible for it's own loss and to waive any claims which it may have against other participants. The crosswaiver of liability clause may apply to the participants in the launch who are parties to the launch services agreement, but not apply to their subcontractors. The role of insurance in responding to many risks has been critical in assisting commercial space ventures grow. Today traditional property and liability insurance, such as pre-launch, launch and in-orbit insurance and third party liability insurance, have become mandatory parts of most space projects. The manufacture and pre-launch insurance covers direct physical loss or damage to the satellite, its apogee kick moter and including its related launch equipment from commencement of loading operations at the manufacture's plant until lift off. The launch and early orbit insurance covers the satellite for physical loss or damage from attachment of risk through to commissioning and for some period of initial operation between 180 days and 12 months after launch. The in-orbit insurance covers physical loss of or damage to the satellite occuring during or caused by an event during the policy period. The third party liability insurance covers the satellite owner' s liability exposure at the launch site and liability arising out of the launch and operation in orbit. In conclusion, the liability in commercial space ventures extends to any organization which participates in providing products and services used in the venture. Accordingly, it is essential for any organization participating in commercial space ventures to contractually disclaim its liability to the extent permitted by law. To achieve the effective disclaimers, it is necessary to determine the applicable law and to understand the requirements of the law which will govern the terms of the contract. A great deal of funds have been used in R&D for commercial space ventures to increase reliability, safety and success. However, the historical reliability of launches and success for commercial space ventures have proved to be slightly lower than we would have wished for. Space insurance has played an important role in reducing the high risks present in commercial space ventures.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.21 no.1
• /
• pp.169-189
• /
• 2006

In 2007, KSLV(Korea Small Launching Vehicle) that we made at Goheung National Space Center is going to launch and promotes of our space exploration systematically and 'Space Exploration Promotion Act' was enter into force. 'Space Exploration Promotion Act' article 3, section 1, as is prescribing "Korean government keeps the space treaties contracted with other countries and international organizations and pursues after peaceful uses of outer space." The representative international treaties are Outer Space Treaty (1967) and Liability Convention (1972) etc. In Liability convention article 2, "A launching State shall be absolutely liable to pay compensation for damage caused by its space object on the surface of the earth or to aircraft in flight. The important content of the art. 2 is the responsible entity is the 'State' not the 'Company'. According by Korean Space Exploration Act art. 14, person who launches space objects according to art. 8 and art. 11 must bear the liability for damages owing to space accidents of the space objects. Could Korean government apply the Products Liability Act which is enter into force from July 1, 2002 to space launching person? And what is the contact type between Korea Aerospace Research Institute(KARl) and Russia manufacturer. Is that a Co-Development contract or Licence Product contract? And there is no exemption clause to waive the Russia manufacturer's liability which we could find it from other similar contract condition. If there is no exemption clause to the Russia manufacturer, could we apply the Korean Products Liability Act to Russia one? The most important legal point is whether we could apply the Korean Products Liability Act to the main component company. According by the art. 17 of the contract between KARl and the company, KARl already apply the Products Liability Act to the main component company. For reference, we need to examine the Appalachian Insurance co. v. McDonnell Douglas case, this case is that long distance electricity communication satellite of Western Union Telegraph company possessions fails on track entry. In Western Union's insurance company supplied to Western Union with insurance of $ 105 millions, which has the satellite regard as entirely damage. Five insurance companies -Appalachian insurance company, Commonwealth insurance company, Industrial Indemnity, Mutual Marine Office, Northbrook Excess & Surplus insurance company- went to court against McDonnell Douglases, Morton Thiokol and Hitco company to inquire for fault and strict liability of product. By the Appalachian Insurance co. v. McDonnell Douglas case, KARl should waiver the main component's product liability burden. And we could study the possibility of the adapt 'Government Contractor Defense' theory to the main component company.

• Journal of the Korea Safety Management & Science
• /
• v.10 no.3
• /
• pp.99-107
• /
• 2008

Product liability(PL) is the producer's compensation to customers for damage incurred by product defects. This paper studies on the organizational culture, promotion process, system construction, system level, product safety review, product safety assurance, system operation, and its effectiveness and necessity of recognition for the PL system of small and medium-sized firms in Gangwon-Do province. The results show that the firms have product safety regulations, but the number of firms which its employees understand the regulations is less than the number of firms which do not understand. Also the number of firms which is preparing PL prevention and insurance, and counterplan for accidents seems to be not in large numbers.

• Korea Trade Review
• /
• v.45 no.6
• /
• pp.157-179
• /
• 2020

This study presented the results of meta-analysis through topic modeling among the papers published in the Journal of the International Trade Association for the purpose of presenting academic research trends in the field of trade insurance and future research directions. Among the total 2,010 papers included in the Journal of the Korea International Trade Association, the analyzed paper covers the subject of trade-related insurance. According to detailed topics, 33 marine insurance (42.31%), 16 export insurance (20.51%), 11 hull insurance (14.10%), and 18 others (23.08%), and 4 other products liability insurance. According to the empirical analysis results, Topic 1 was classified as marine insurance, airworthiness, notice obligation, and collateral, and Topic 2 was derived as a representative topic for loading insurance, emergency risk, and immunity as export insurance. And Topic 3 was classified as vessel, sinking and container in relation to ship insurance, and Topic 4 was analyzed as an important topic such as manufacture and British marine insurance. Through the analysis results, we selected the representative topic used for the trade insurance topic and looked at the status of major research. Trade insurance is an area that requires the development of more theoretical and practical research subjects as an optimal risk management means in international trade transactions. To this end, first, support from the Korea International Trade Association is needed to establish a continuous research subject sharing system for the development of research subjects in the field of trade insurance. Second, academic journal operation management must be continuously managed in which academic research papers can be submitted and published.

• Journal of Korean Society of Industrial and Systems Engineering
• /
• v.39 no.2
• /
• pp.11-18
• /
• 2016

Product liability (PL), which began enforcement in 2002, refers to the legal responsibility of the manufacturers or sellers (wholesales or retailers) for the property damage or bodily harm caused by their product. With a strong enforcement of the Product Liability (PL) Act, companies are required to structure and operate a response system to defend or prevent product accidents efficiently, but small and medium enterprises (SMEs) are unable to respond more aggressively due to limitation of management resources. In this manner, it is important to develop response strategies for SMEs to efficiently cope with the PL Act. In this paper, the PEST (Political, Economic, Social, and Technological) analysis is performed to reveal the impact of the PL Act on SMEs in macro-economic point of view. To formulate SME's PL response strategy, SWOT analysis is performed to categorize each factors from PEST analysis and AHP is applied to identify the intensities of SWOT factors. The prioritized SWOT factor, results of PEST-SWOT-AHP analysis, are used to formulate SME's PL response strategies. The study results are briefly summarized as follows. To reduce product defects, it is necessary for SMEs to formulate PL response strategies for each phase of the product life cycle by continuously collecting and analyzing PL cases in the same industry or for similar products. In addition, SMEs should invest more technological effort to ensure product safety. Further, SMEs should spread PL awareness to all staff members by training internal PL experts. Moreover, a SME should enroll in PL insurance and spread this information to its customers so that they become aware that the company is proactively conforming to the PL law.

• 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.