• Journal of Preventive Medicine and Public Health
• /
• v.49 no.2
• /
• pp.80-96
• /
• 2016

Recently, a series of lawsuits were filed in Korea claiming tort liability against tobacco companies. The Supreme Court has already issued decisions in some cases, while others are still pending. The primary issue in these cases is whether the epidemiological evidence submitted by the plaintiffs clearly proves the causal relationship between smoking and disease as required by civil law. Proving causation is difficult in tobacco lawsuits because factors other than smoking are involved in the development of a disease, and also because of the lapse of time between smoking and the manifestation of the disease. The Supreme Court (Supreme Court Decision, 2011Da22092, April 10, 2014) has imposed some limitations on using epidemiological evidence to prove causation in tobacco lawsuits filed by smokers and their family members, but these limitations should be reconsidered. First, the Court stated that a disease can be categorized as specific or non-specific, and for each disease type, causation can be proven by different types of evidence. However, the concept of specific diseases is not compatible with multifactor theory, which is generally accepted in the field of public health. Second, when the epidemiological association between the disease and the risk factor is proven to be significant, imposing additional burdens of proof on the plaintiff may considerably limit the plaintiff's right to recovery, but the Court required the plaintiffs to provide additional information such as health condition and lifestyle. Third, the Supreme Court is not giving greater weight to the evidential value of epidemiological study results because the Court focuses on the fact that these studies were group-level, not individual-level. However, group-level studies could still offer valuable information about individual members of the group, e.g., probability of causation.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.49
• /
• pp.283-324
• /
• 2011

The purpose of this paper is to research the air waybill and the carrier's liability in respect of the carriage of cargo by air under the Montreal Convention of 1999. The Warsaw Convention for the unification of certain rules for international carriage by air was adopted in 1929 and modified successively in 1955, 1961, 1971, 1975 and 1999. The Montreal Convention of 1999 modernized and consolidated the Warsaw Convention and related instruments. Under the Montreal Convention, in respect of the carriage of cargo, the air waybill shall be made out by the consignor. If, at the request of the consignor, the carrier makes it out, the carrier shall be deemed to have done so on behalf of the consignor. The air waybill shall be made out in three orignal parts. Under the Montreal Convention, the consignor shall indemnify the carrier against all damages suffered by the carrier or any other person to whom the carrier is liable, by reason of the irregularity, incorrectness or incompleteness of the particulars and statement furnished by the consignor or on its behalf. The air waybill is not a document of title or negotiable instrument. Under the Montreal Convention, the air waybill is prima facie evidence of the conclusion of the contract, of the acceptance of the cargo and of the conditions of carriage. If the carrier carries out the instructions of the consignor for the disposition of the cargo without requiring the production of the part of the air waybill, the carrier will be liable, for any damage which may be accused thereby to any person who is lawfully in possession of the part of the air waybill. Under the Montreal Convention, the carrier is liable by application of principle of strict liability for the damage sustained during the carriage of cargo by air. The carrier is liable for the destruction or loss of, or damage to cargo and delay during the carriage by air. The period of the carriage by air does not extend to any carriage by land, by sea or by inland waterway performed outside an airport. Under the Montreal Convention, the carrier's liability is limited to a sum of 17 Special Drawing Rights per kilogramme. Any provision tending to relieve the carrier of liability or to fix a lower limit than that which is laid down in this Convention shall be and void. Under the Montreal Convention, if the carrier proves that the damage was caused by the negligence or other wrongful act or omission of the person claiming compensation, or the person from whom he derives his rights, the carrier shall be wholly or partly exonerated from ist liability to the claimant to the extent that such negligence or wrongful act or omission caused the damage. Under the Montreal Convention, any action for damages, however founded, whether under this Convention or in contract or in tort or otherwise, can only be brought subject to the conditions and such limits of liability as are set out in this Convention. Under the Montreal Convention, in the case of damage the person entitled to delivery must complain to the carrier forthwith after the discovery of the damage, and at the latest, within fourteen days from the date of receipt of cargo. In the case of delay, the complaint must be made at the latest within twenty-one days from the date on which the cargo has been placed at his disposal. if no complaint is made within the times aforesaid, no action shall lie against the carrier, save in the case of fraud on its part. Under the Montreal Convention, the right to damage shall be extinguished if an action is not brought within a period of two years, reckoned from the date of arrival at the destination, or from the date on which the aircraft ought to have arrived, or from the date on which the carriage stopped. In conclusion, the Montreal Convention has main outstanding issues with respect to the carrier's liability in respect of the carriage of cargo by air as follows : The amounts of limits of the carrier's liability, the duration of the carrier's liability, and the aviation liability insurance. Therefore, the conditions and limits of the carrier's liability under the Montreal Convention should be readjusted and regulated in detail.

• The Journal of the Korea Contents Association
• /
• v.6 no.4
• /
• pp.146-157
• /
• 2006

Causal relationship means what relations the result occurred have with a fact as a reason. In general, a formular that no result exists without reasons is used for the method to confirm existence and inexistence of causal relationship. Problematic causal relationships in Private Law are reparations (Article No. 393 of Private Law) due to debt nonfulfillment and reparation due to tort (Application of Article No. 393 by Article No. 750, and No. 763 of Private Law). The purpose pursued by reparation system in private law is to promote equal burden of damages, and the range of reparation at this time is decided by the range of damage and the range of damage is decided by the principle of causal relationship. That the causal relationship theory fairly causes confusion by treating one problem and the other problem as the same thing, instead of dividing them according to the purpose of protection presented by the law is a reason of the criticism from different views.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.31 no.2
• /
• pp.3-35
• /
• 2016

The United States Constitution gives power to the federal district courts to hear admiralty cases. 28 U.S.C. §.133, which states that "The district courts shall have original jurisdiction, exclusive of the Courts of the States, of any civil case of admiralty or maritime jurisdiction." However, the determination of whether a case is about admiralty or maritime so that triggers admiralty jurisdiction was not a simple question. Through numerous legal precedents, the courts have drawn a line to clarify the boundary of admiralty cases. This unique jurisdiction is not determined by the mere involvement of a vessel in the case or even by the occurrence of an event on a waterway. As a general rule, a case is within admiralty jurisdiction if it arises from an accident on the navigable waters of the United States (locus test) and involves some aspect of maritime commerce (nexus test). With regarding to the maritime nexus requirement, the US Supreme Court case, Executive Jet Aviation, Inc. v. City of Cleveland, held that federal courts lacked admiralty jurisdiction over an aviation tort claim where a plane during a flight wholly within the US crashed in Lake Erie. Although maritime locus was present, the Court excluded admiralty jurisdiction because the incident was "only fortuitously and incidentally connected to navigable waters" and bore "no relationship to traditional maritime activity." However, this historical case left a milestone question: whether an aircraft disaster occurred on navigable water triggers the admiralty jurisdiction, only for the reason that it was for international transportation? This article is to explore the meaning of admiralty jurisdiction over aviation accidents at US courts. Given that the aircraft engaged in transportation of passenger and goods as the vessels did in the past, the aviation has been linked closely with the traditional maritime activities. From this view, this article reviews a decision delivered by the Seventh Circuit regarding the aviation accident occurred on July 6, 2013 at San Francisco International Airport.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.35 no.3
• /
• pp.3-37
• /
• 2020

The aircraft crew operating on international routes performs almost identical tasks as police officials in terms of dealing with the unlawful interference in the aircraft. This means that the liability question which is related to the law enforcement by the police officer may arise regarding the crew's performance of his or her duties. With regard to the carrier's liability due to the crew's unlawful action, there are distinctive characteristics from the liability due to police officers' unlawful action. In case of the claim for damages by the crew's unlawful action, the first question should be whether such action complies with the requirements under the Tokyo Convention 1963. If such action does not conform with the Tokyo Convention 1963, we should examine that claim under the State Compensation Act, the Montreal Convention 1999, and the Civil Act of Korea. The examination under the Tokyo Convention 1963 is not so different from the Korean Court's precedents. However, the court should consider the characteristics of the environment surrounding the crew. The action which is not indemnified under the Tokyo Convention 1963 should be examined under the tort laws. Because the aircraft crew is private persons entrusted with public duties under Korean Law, the State Compensation Act may apply. However, further studies regarding the harmonious interpretation with the Montreal Convention 1999 is needed. With regard to the carrier's liability, the Montreal Convention of 1999 should be applied to the crew's unlawful actions onboard. This is because the Montreal Convention of 1999 preempts the national law for the events that occurred during transportation, and there is no provision which excludes such unlawful actions from the scope of its application. On the other hand, the national law, such as the Civil Act of Korea, applies to unlawful actions taken after transportation. This is because the interpretation that infinitely expands the scope of the Montreal Convention 1999 should not be allowed. Given the foregoing, the standard of the claim for damages due to the crew's unlawful action varies depending on the place where the specific action was taken. As a result, the type of damage recoverable and the burden of proof also varies accordingly. Carriers and crew members must perform their duties with this in mind, but in particular, they should observe the proportionality, and when interpreting the law, it is necessary for the court or lawyer to consider the special characteristics of the work environment.

• Korean Journal of Plant Resources
• /
• v.18 no.3
• /
• pp.470-478
• /
• 2005

The objective of present study was to investigate the hepatoprotective and antioxidative effects of onion extracts. Primary cultures of rat hepatocytes were incubated with 1.5 mM tort-butyl hydroperoxide(t-BHP), potent oxidizing agent to liver, for 1 hr in the presence or absence of various concentrations (0, 0.01, 0.05, 0.1 or 0.3 mg/ml) of onion extract. Incubation with t-BHP increased glutamic oxaloacetic transaminase(GOT) and lactate dehydrogenase(LDH) acitivities and thiobarbituric acid reactive substances(TBARS) concentration but decreased 3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2,5-diphenyl tetrazolium bromide(MTT) reduction. Onion extracts at the concentration of 0.05 mg/ml decreased t-BHP-induced GOT and LDH activities. Onion extract at the concentration of 0.1 mg/ml increased t-BHP-induced MTT reduction. Onion extract at the concentration of 0.01 mg/ml decreased t-BHP-induced TBARS concentration. Taken together, onion extracts prevented t-BHP-induced hepatocyte injury and lipid peroxidation. Catalase, glutathione peroxidase(GSH-Px) and glutathione reductase(GSH-Rd) activities of hepatocytes were significantly decreased by t-BHP. Onion extracts at the concentration of 0.1 mg/ml prevented t-BHP-induced decrease in catalase, GSH-Px and GSH-Rd activities. Onion extracts prevented hydroxyl radical-induced single-strand breakage in dose-dependent manner when plasmid DNA was incubated with various concentrations of onion extracts in the presence of Fenton reagents producing hydroxyl radical. These results demonstrate that onion extracts suppressed t-BHP-induced cytoctoxicity, decreased viability and lipid peroxidation and increased GSH-Px, GSH-Rd and catalase activities. Thus hepatoprotective and antioxidant effects of onion extract seem to be due to, at least in part, the increase in antioxidant enzyme activities as well as prevention from hydroxyl radical-induced oxidation, followed by inhibition of lipid peroxidation.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.26 no.1
• /
• pp.177-213
• /
• 2011

The purpose of this paper is to research on the liability and cases for space damage with reference to the space activity under the international space treaty and national space law of major countries. The United Nations has adopted two treaties relating to the liability for space damage as follows: the Outer Space Treaty of 1967 and the Liability Convention of 1972. Korea has enacted the Outer Space Damage Compensation Act of 2008 relating to the liability for space damages. The Outer Space Treaty of 1967 regulates the international responsibility for national activities in outer space, and the national tort liability for damage by space launching object. The Liability Convention of 1972 regulates the absolute liability by a launching state, the faulty liability by a launching state, the joint and several liability by a launching state, the person claiming for compensation, the claim method for compensation, the claim period of compensation, the claim for compensation and local remedy, the compensation amount for damage by a launching state, and the establishment of the Claims Commission. The Outer Space Damage Compensation Act of 2008 in Korea regulates the definition of space damage, the relation of the Outer Space Damage Compensation Act and the international treaty, the non-faulty liability for damage by a launching person, the concentration of liability and recourse by a launching person, the exclusion of application of the Product Liability Act, the limit amount of the liability for damage by a launching person, the cover of the liability insurance by a launching person, the measures and assistance by the government in case of occurring the space damage, and the exercise period of the claim right of compensation for damage. There are several cases with reference to the liability for damage caused by space accidents as follows: the Collision between Iridium 33 and Cosmos 2251, the Disintegration of Cosmos 954 over Canadian Territory, the Failure of Satellite Launching by Martin Marietta, and the Malfunctioning of Westar VI Satellite. In the disputes and lawsuits due to such space accidents, the problems relating to the liability for space damage have been settled by the application of absolute(strict) liability principle or faulty liability principle. The Liability Convention of 1972 should be improved as follows: the clear definition in respect of the claimer of compensation for damage, the measure in respect of the enforcement of decision by the Claims Commission. The Outer Space Damage Compensation Act of 2008 in Korea should be improved as follows: the inclusion of indirect damage into the definition of space damage, the change of the currency unit of the limit amount of liability for damage, the establishment of joint and several liability and recourse right for damage by space joint launching person, and the establishment of the Space Damage Compensation Review Commission. Korea has built the space center at Oinarodo, Goheung Province in June 2009. Korea has launched the first small launch vehicle KSLV-1 at the Naro Space Center in August 2009 and June 2010. In Korea, it will be the possibility to be occurred the problems relating to the international responsibility and the liability for space damage in the course of space activity. Accordingly the Korean government and launching organization should make the legal and systematic policy to cope with such problems.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.16 no.2
• /
• pp.197-225
• /
• 2015

The presentation of this paper was triggered by the spread of MERS in Korea in the year 2015. The analysis of the present acts related with MERS is necessary in order to cope efficiently with any probable spread of such infectious diseases as MERS in future. The acts that should be analyzed in this paper include 'Medical Service Act' and 'Infectious Disease Control And Prevention Act' (hereafter, IDCAPA). At first the classification of the infectious diseases in IDCAPA should be referred to. The Act does not properly classify them because the scope of concept of each group of the infectious diseases overlaps each other. This overlap should be removed. The present system in IDCAPA is not proper for the efficient notification and reporting of the infectious disease patients. This is so in some viewpoints including the persons obligated to make the notification and reporting, the persons to whom they should notify and report such patients, and the process of notification and reporting. The efficient approach to the information related with the infectious disease is necessary for the rapid prevention of its spread. Cohort isolation and quarantine of the infectious patients and exposed contacts are the strongest and most efficient steps for the prevention of spread of the infectious diseases. One of the great problems related with such steps would be the conflict of powers or attributions, the likelihood of which is inevitable under the present system of IDCAPA. The IDCAPA distributed the power or attribution to take the steps to the three governments including the central government, the metropolitan government and the primary local government. The power should be concentrated in the central government, which could afford financially to compensate for the huge amount of damages caused likely by the steps. The power to take the steps would be actually just a useless thing for its holder without such financial capacity. The remedy for the victims by the fault of spreader should be approached to in the sense of national wealth. The general principle of tort law could not supply the victims with the sufficient remedy because the damages would be likely too huge for the wealth of such spreader to cope with. In future another parliamentary inspection could reveal another problems in the administration by the government of the MERS event in the year 2015. Any problem caused by defect in the legal system of the control and prevention of the infectious diseases should be taken into consideration when the legal system would be reformed in future.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.13 no.1
• /
• pp.199-247
• /
• 2012

According to the review and analysis of medical cases that are assigned to the Supreme Court and all local High Court in 2011 and that are presented in the media, it was found that the following categories were taken seriously, medical and pharmaceutical product liability, the third principle of trust between medical institutions, negligence and causation estimation, responsibility limit, the meaning of medical records and related judgment of disturbed substantiation, Oriental doctors' duties to explain the procedures, IMS events, whether one can claim for each medical care operated by non-physician health care institutions to the nonmedical domain in the National Health Insurance Corporation, and the basis of norms for each claim. In the cases related to medical pharmaceutical product liability, Supreme Court alleviated burden of proof for accidents with medical and pharmaceutical products prior to the practice of Product Liability Law and onset the point of negative prescription as the time of damage strikes to condition feasibility of the specific situation. In the cases related to the 3rd principle of trust between medical institutions, the Supreme Court refused to sentence the doctor who has trusted the judgment of the same third-party doctors the violations of the care duty. With respect to proof of a causal relationship and damages in a medical negligence case, the Supreme Court decided that it is unjust to deny negligence by the materials of causal relationship rejecting the original verdict and clarified that the causal relationship shall not deny the reasons to limit doctors' responsibilities. In order not put burden on patients with disadvantages in which medical records and the description of the practice or the most fundamental and important evidence to prove negligence and causation are being neglected, the Supreme Court admitted in the hospital's responsibility for the case of the neonate death of suffocation without properly listed fetal heart rate and uterine contraction monitor. On the other hand, the Seoul Western District Court has admitted alimony for altering and forging medical records. With respect to doctors' obligations to description, the Supreme Court decided that it is necessary to explain the foreseen risks by the combination of oriental and western medicines emphasizing the right of patient's self-determination. However, questions have arisen whether it is realistically feasible or not. In a case of an unlicensed doctor performing intramuscular stimulation treatment (IMS), the Supreme Court put off its decision if it was an unlicensed medical practice as to put limitation of eastern and western medical practices, but it declared that IMS practice was an acupuncture treatment therefore the plaintiff's conduct being an illegal act. In the future, clear judgment on this matter should be made. With respect to the claim of bills from non-physical health care institutions, the Supreme Court decided to void it for the implementation of the arrangement is contrary to the commitments made in the medical law and therefore, it is invalid to claim. In addition, contrast to the private healthcare professionals, who are subject to redemption according to the National Healthcare Insurance Law, the Seoul High Court explicitly confirmed that the non-professionals who receive the tort operating profit must return the unjust enrichment and have the liability for damages. As mentioned above, a relatively wide range of topics were discussed in medical field of 2011. In Korea's health care environment undergoing complex changes day by day, it is expected to see more diverse and in-depth discussions striding out to the development in the field of health care.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.35 no.2
• /
• pp.137-168
• /
• 2020

Air passengers may be compensated for damages based on the above agreement when the passenger suffers an accident to the extent that they are recognized as an accident under Article 17 of the Montreal Convention in 1999. If a flight or cabin crew and passengers both undergo an accident, passengers are subjected to compensation under the Montreal Convention however flight cabin crews will be compensated by the Labor Law, which is the governing law in the labor contract with the airline. The flight or cabin crew boarding the aircraft work is on a work contract, not a passenger transport contract. Therefore, if the flight or cabin crew on the aircraft is injured due to an accident, and the air carrier is liable for default due to a labor contract, the Labor Law, workers or survivors claim damages due to illegal acts against the employer. In which case, civil law will apply. In this regard, if a Chinese cabin crew working for a Chinese airline dies due to an accident in the Republic of Korea, whether the family of the deceased claims damages against the Chinese airline or not has international court jurisdiction in the Republic of Korea, which is the place of tort. We examined whether it is the law of the Republic of Korea or whether it's the Chinese law, the law applicable to the work contract, is applied. Also, Seoul District Court 1995.5.18. The sentence 94A 14144 was found that if the injured crew during the flight work was not satisfied with the insurance compensation under the Labor Standards Act and the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, he could claime to damage under the civil law against an air carrier or third parties responsible for the accident. This law case shows that you can claim a civil damage as a cause. In case of death due to an existing illness while on the way to work, the Korea Workers'Compensation and Welfare Service did not recognize the death of the deceased as an occupational accident, and the trial was canceled by the parents of the deceased for the survivor's benefit and funeral expenses. (Seoul Administrative Court 2017.8. 31. Although the sentence was judged as an occupational disaster in 2016, the 2016 8816 Decision), it was defeated in the appeals court (Seoul High Court 2018.7.19.Sentence 2017 No. 74186) and I criticized the judgment of the appeal by analyzing the deceased's disease and related the cause of it to workload. Sometimes, a flight or cabin crew is on board not for the flight duty such as transferring to another flight or returning to the home base or lay-over place after their scheduled flight, this is called "Deadheading". If the crew who is not considered the same as a passenger, but is not on duty, is injured in an accident, does the crew claim compensation for damages under the labor contract or whether the Montreal Convention is applied to the passenger. In conjunction with the discussion, there was a similar case, In re Mexico City Aircrash of October 31, 1979, 708 F.2d 400 (9th Cir. 1983), Demanes v. United Airlines, 348 F.Supp. 13 (C.D.Cal. 1972), Sulewski v. Federal Express Corp., 749 F.Supp. 506 (S.D.N.Y. 1990) and reviewed by the European Court of Justice (CJEU) at Wucher Helicopter GmbH and Euro-Aviation Versicherungs AG v. After examining several acts in several countries it's undeniably crucial to clearly understand the definition of "passenger" as stated in the Fridolin Santer case.