• Journal of Navigation and Port Research
• /
• v.33 no.3
• /
• pp.181-191
• /
• 2009

In general, seafarer's human error is considered to be the preponderant muse for the majority of maritime transportation accidents in a merchant ship. The implementation techniques for Human Error Model (HEM) to assess possible accident risk by deck officers including captain, chief officer, second mate and third mate are described in this study. The scope of this work is focused to 642 deck officers in the ship management company with 130 vessels. At first, HEM can be constructed through the statistical analysis and expert's brainstorming process with human data to 642 deck officers. Then the variables $\upsilon$ for the human factors, the evaluation level EP($\upsilon$) for $\upsilon$, the weight $\alpha$ of $\upsilon$, and the title weight $\beta$ of each deck officers can be decided. In addition, through the analysis of ship's accident history, the accident causation ratios by human error ${\gamma}_H$ and by external error ${\gamma}_B$ can be found as 0.517(51.7%) and 0.483(48.3%), respectively. The correlation coefficients to $\upsilon$ are also shown significant for a 95% confidence interval (p < 0.05) for each coefficient. And the validity of HEM is also surveyed by the analysis of normal probability distribution of risk level RL to each deck officer.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.24 no.4
• /
• pp.3-36
• /
• 2023

The main issue in medical malpractice civil litigation is medical negligence and the causal relationship between medical negligence and damages. Regarding the presumption of causality in cases where medical negligence is proven, there is a previous Supreme Court decision 93da52402 on February 10, 1995, but it is difficult to find a case that satisfies the textual requirements of the above decision, and yet, in practice, the above decision is cited. In many cases, causal relationships were assumed, and criticism was consistently raised that it was inconsistent with the text of the above judgment. In its ruling, the Supreme Court reorganized and presented a new legal principle regarding the presumption of causality when medical negligence is proven in a civil lawsuit. According to this, If the patient proves ① the existence of an act that is assessed as a medical negligence, that is, a violation of the duty of care required of an ordinary medical professional at the level of medical care practiced in the field of clinical medicine at the time of medical practice, and ② that the negligence is likely to cause damages to the patient, the burden of proving the causal relationship is alleviated by presuming a causal relationship between medical negligence and damage. Here, the probability of occurrence of damage does not need to be proven beyond doubt from a natural scientific or medical perspective, but if recognizing the causal relationship between the negligence and the damage does not comply with medical principles or if there is a vague possibility that the negligence will cause damage, causality cannot be considered proven. Meanwhile, even if a causal relationship between medical negligence and damage is presumed, the party that performed the medical treatment can overturn the presumption by proving that the patient's damage was not caused by medical negligence. Meanwhile, unlike civil cases, the standard is 'proof beyond reasonable doubt' in criminal cases, and the legal principle of presuming causality does not apply. Accordingly, in a criminal case of professional negligence manslaughter that was decided on the same day regarding the same medical accident, the case was overturned and remanded for not guilty due to lack of proof of a causal relationship between medical negligence and death. The above criminal ruling is a ruling that states that even if 'professional negligence' is recognized in a criminal case related to medical malpractice, the person should not be judged guilty if there is a lack of clear proof of 'causal relationship'.