• Journal of the Korean Society for Aviation and Aeronautics
• /
• 제13권2호
• /
• pp.48-62
• /
• 2005

In aviation criminal law is negligence different from in civil law and in general criminal law. The Interpretation of aviation criminal negligence must be elucidated in characteristic own way. The thesis considers the principle of trust, permissible risk and the accomplice offender.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• 제7권2호
• /
• pp.179-218
• /
• 2006

To succeed the claim of medical negligence, the plaintiff should establish the medical profession's fault, and the causation between the fault and damages. The faults are judged on lege artis, which is based on expert witness. However, judges often infer the faults and causations from circumstantial evidences and patients' injuries. This presumptions depend on the law of nature(Erfahrungsgesetz). The law of nature can explain the typical development of the event. If the circumstantial evidences were in accordance with that, the faults and causations would be able to be recognized by the judges. Therefore the standards of comparison such as lege artis or the law of nature play an important role for medical negligence liabilities to be imputed to doctors or hospitals. The factual elements necessary to assume the fault is similar to those of the causation, for the concept of the fault is correlated with that of the causation. The elements include the temporal and spatial proximity between damages and defendant's medical treatments, no existence of other causations, the probability of bed results developed by the medical treatments, and so on. These enable the fault and causation to be assumed at the same times.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• 제9권1호
• /
• pp.57-127
• /
• 2008

In medical malpractice lawsuits, negligence is generally defined as conduct that is culpable because it falls short of what a reasonable person would do to protect another individual from a foreseeable risks of harm. Thus, the essence of negligence is a breach of obligations to be attentive, and the breach of obligations to be is negligence. However, whether negligence is or not depends on time, place, litigation forms and the judge since the meaning of negligence is wavering on the basis of abstract and normative judgment. In this thesis, what is medical negligence, a breach of obligations of attention for a doctor in medical malpractice lawsuits, would be it further enacted that doctors have the responsibility to protect the patients as a subordinate duty due to a principle of faith and sincerity besides the main duty for medical contract-performance since the suit is a litigation form to be based on responsibilities of experts, especially doctors, though having factors that are non-contractual as a trait for medical treatment. Further on the concept, when the plaintiff asserts and proves a specific fact from the recent moderation of the burden of proof about medical malpractices, whether the court should find a true bill in medical malpractice actually or not has been discussed.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• 제15권1호
• /
• pp.83-122
• /
• 2014

Compared with medical cases and health care law from other countries there has been a lot of progress on medical law, especially on medical precedents in Korea. However, in recent years, medical precedents tend to reflect a realistic position of health care providers, rather than normative position of the victim. The burden of proof to prove strict liability is given to patients in civil law suits by courts, patients generally has the burden of proof. The rate of claims to prove the negligence of medical malpractice is falling significantly. Even if the error is acknowledged, it is not enough to get right to be relief for patients by increasing limitations of liability or ratio of patient's own negligence. Compensation fee is included in medical fees and risk of medical malpractice actions contributes ultimately to a health care consumer. In conclusion, author represents a major the new upgrade of above mentioned problem. By advising that court should assess actively for the perspective of victim for medical negligence we will be able to exercise remedies of patients' rights and to prevent recurring medical accidents and also contribute to medical advances.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• 제13권1호
• /
• pp.91-123
• /
• 2012

Doctors and patients for the purpose of healing and treatment of disease through the contract will make a relationship. Doctors perform the medical practice for the state and illness of patient. Given that the patient did not cooperate in the doctor's medical practice, it is difficult to achieve the goal of disease healing. If the patient don't cooperate the medical care, and it is linked with a doctor's medical malpractice, patient's violation of obligation in medical cooperation is considered with negligence on the part of patients. However, this negligence should be limited to obvious cases that the patient's behavior is unreasonable although the doctor provides medical information to patients and induced the patient's response. Also, patient's violation of obligation in medical cooperation must result in adjusting the indemnification via a setoff of fault except the cases having causal relationship between doctor's fault and malpractice.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• 제13권1호
• /
• pp.11-40
• /
• 2012

National Health Insurance Act has been enforced all over the People as part of the effort to assure the minimum constitutional human worth and dignity in the aspect of the right to pursue health for preventing misfortune that comes to death without even a chance to be received treatment for illness or injury. Meanwhile auto insurance is compulsory in certain parts in order to promote benefits of everyday life and the rapid recovery of the damage caused by traffic accident when one have negligently driven a car which has become the necessities in daily life. Any injured driver in a traffic accident can be treated by National Health Insurance without getting an auto insurance in various circumstances, but Article 3 paragraph 2 of Traffic Accident Act don't allow exception of criminal punishment when he has driven a car without license, drunken, or tresspassing the centerline, etc. When the injury occured by his own certain negligence is judged to 'when he has intentionally or through gross negligence caused a criminal conduct or intentionally contributed to the occurrence of an accident' of National Health Insurance Act, insurance benefits can be restricted. Such a restriction could harm the right to pursue happiness and health of People by depriving the poor, who cannot afford to pay, of chances to get treatment. Here we will see benefit restriction by 'gross negligence' of National Health Insurance Act Article 48 paragraph 1, which has largest portion of such restriction. It is desirable to delete 'gross negligence' clause from above paragraph and to interpret 'when' clause restrictively for diminishing confusion of interpreting and guaranteeing the right of health.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• 제11권2호
• /
• pp.209-235
• /
• 2010

According to the development of medical technology, new medical treatments have been dramatically increased as an inevitable consequence, however, it is not easy for medical workers to learn the knowledge that is necessary for new medical treatments and their additions in the medical services. Therefore, it could not be helped increasing the guidelines for applying new medical treatments, and then, the problem would come out whether to attribute the medical negligence to the doctors who did not follow the guidelines when the patient became worse because of his non-compliance. Nevertheless, there is no document to review the problem mentioned above and also no definite precedents. Thus, the civil lawful character and obligation of guidelines on the lawsuit against the medical default have been examined in this studies. The medical negligence is defined as usual doctors violate the care obligation which is demanded for them to follow when they treat patients under the proper medical standard in those days. It is resonable to assume that the matter of guidelines is to decide the level of the care obligation, that means the care which is required of the rational doctors under same circumstances, and in general, the experts' testimonies should be needed in this case. In addition, the issue comes out whether the guidelines can be the standard of the judgement of the medical negligence. Finally, I suppose, the evaluation of the issue depends on who makes the guidelines, what materials are based on, and also depends on whether there is another guidelines in the same disease, what the purpose of guidelines is to save the medical costs or to realize the appropriate medical services, in addition, it depends on how often renew the guidelines, and how wide is the usage of guidelines.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• 제9권1호
• /
• pp.165-196
• /
• 2008

Recently the Supreme Court held that "in cases in which a patient suffering from a mental disorder attempts to commit suicide, fails, and then succeeds in a subsequent attempt, the following circumstances must be present in order to acknowledge reasonable causation between the negligence of the hospital with regards to taking care of the patient and the death of the patient; there must have existed negligence on the part of the hospital with regards to their failure to stop the 1stsuicide attempt, injurious aftereffects must have been caused to the patient by the1stsuicide attempt, and said aftereffects must have been the main cause for the 2nd successful suicide attemtp." This, in effect, lessens the requirements of past holdings of the Supreme Court which held that "to acknowledge reasonable causation between the negligence of the hospital and the patient that commits suicide, the patient must have experienced such severe physical and mental suffering from the previous attempt so that they could not help but choose to commit suicide". The fact that the Supreme Court did not clearly state such changes in their view on this matter should be corrected. Also, the fact that the court only held the hospital liable for damages of less than 50 million won, only calculating damages up to the point when the deceased passed, is inadequate compared to other cases and should be corrected.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• 제22권2호
• /
• pp.49-79
• /
• 2021

Due to defendant's wrongful act by implant surgery, plaintiff has been suffered serious damages to his face and teeth, and pain caused by establishing implanted teeth. Jeonju Appellate Court sentenced to pay future medical expenses and alimony to the plaintiff in compensation for breach of duty or torts. The ruling is designed to relieve the burden of proof because it is extremely difficult for non-experts to determine whether dentists violated their 'duty of care' or whether there was a causal relationship between damages to medial treatment. It was judged that if symptoms that contributed to the patient's significant outcome occurred during or after surgery, such symptoms could be presumed to have been caused by medical negligence if indirect facts were proven to be other than medical negligence. Originally, the shifting of burden of proof in Germany, has already been developed in medical malpractice case since 1940s. In order to guarantee the patients' right, §630h German Civil Code (BGB) - presumption of negligence in the realization of controllable risk- has been also legislated. BGH (Bundesgerichtshof) has been interested in ensuring that the principle of equality between patients and doctors. So, in this study, we wanted to refer to German precedent cases to analyzing Korean medical malpractice lawsuit. In particular, the decision could be significant in that it approaches closer to allows the shifting burden of proof in drastically growing dental malpractice cases. This is clearly confirmed in the judgment of the dentist's "fault" that "if indirect facts about the symptom or occurrence are proven to be cause other than medical negligence, such symptoms can be presumed to be due to medical negligence."

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• 제9권1호
• /
• pp.197-257
• /
• 2008

Current crown law punishes crime related to unborn child with abortion crime. So we might think that any infringement on unborn child is pretty well protected. But, in terms of illegal abortion, a charge of injuring person and homicide, there are lots blind spots in punishing criminals. Especially, there are numerous unclear cases in illegal abortion. If a doctor killed an unborn child by accident in medical operations, we can't punish him because it was an accident. There still exist controversial cases such as, if an unborn child was somehow damaged and was dead after birth, or was born with disabilities, how are we supposed to punish that? Recently, in a case where a doctor left alone a mother who had a baby and the baby died, our Supreme Court of Korea (Supreme Court of Korea 2007.6.29 2005do 3832) had given a verdict of "not guilty". It looked like they were very fair with current crime law. But, we want this case to be investigated if there weren't any logical contradictions as well as concurrent translation within Constitution Law.