• Journal of Korea Trade
• /
• v.25 no.2
• /
• pp.152-177
• /
• 2021

Purpose - This study analyses the excepted requirement and burden of proof of the carrier due to unseaworthiness through comparison between the marine transport contract and marine insurance contract. Design/methodology - This study uses the legal analytical normative approach. The juridical approach involves reviewing and examining theories, concepts, legal doctrines and legislation that are related to the problems. In this study a literature analysis using academic literature and internet data is conducted. Findings - The burden of proof in case of seaworthiness should be based on presumed fault, not proved fault. The burden of proving unseaworthiness/seaworthiness should shift to the carrier, and should be exercised before seeking the protections of the law or carriage contract. In other words, the insurer cannot escape coverage for unfitness of a vessel which arises while the vessel is at sea, which the assured could not have prevented in the exercise of due diligence. The insurer bears the burden of proving unseaworthiness. The warranty of seaworthiness is implied in hull, but not protection and indemnity policies. The 2015 Act repeals ss. 33(3) and 34 of MIA 1906. Otherwise the provisions of the MIA 1906 remain in force, including the definition of a promissory warranty and the recognition of implied warranties. There is less clarity about the position when the source of the loss occurs before the breach of warranty but the actual loss is suffered after the breach. Nonetheless, by s.10(2) of the 2015 Act the insurer appears not to be liable for any loss occurring after the breach of warranty and before there has been a remedy. Originality/value - When unseaworthiness is identified after the sailing of the vessel, mere acceptance of the ship does not mean the party waives any claims for damages or the right to terminate the contract, provided that failure to comply with the contractual obligations is of critical importance. The burden of proof with regards to loss of damage to a cargo caused by unseaworthiness is regulated by the applicable law. For instance, under the common law, if the cargo claimant alleges that the loss or damage has been caused by unseaworthiness, then he has the burden of proof to establish the followings: (i) that the vessel was unseaworthy at the beginning of the voyage; and that, (ii) that the loss or damage has been caused by such unseaworthiness. In other words, if the warranty of seaworthiness at the inception of the voyage is breached, the breach voids the policy if the ship owner had prior knowledge of the unseaworthy condition. By contrast, knowingly permitting the vessel to break ground in an unseaworthy condition denies liability only for loss or damage proximately caused by the unseaworthiness. Such a breach does not, therefore, void the entire policy, but only serves to exonerate the insurer for loss or damage proximately caused by the unseaworthy condition.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.17 no.2
• /
• pp.57-81
• /
• 2016

It can determine the outcome of the lawsuit whether or not there is a causality between the medical malpractice of a physician and the patient's injury when the patient is filing a lawsuit against the physician in order to pursue civil liability for a medical accident. In medical malpractice lawsuits, it is not easy to judge causality between different civil cases because of the special nature of medical care. Also, information such as medical records is concentrated on doctors and the medical knowledge of the patient is relatively insufficient compared with the doctor. Therefore, it is recognized through medical malpractice lawsuits that the burden of proof of the causality burdened by the plaintiff patient is relaxed. In this paper, I examine the legal theory on how to recognize causality in medical civil liability and then concern the attitude of the case in Korea, which is divided into the types of the causality - such as the case of general medical practice, explanation duty, no causality with medical malpractice.

• 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.11 no.1
• /
• pp.59-84
• /
• 2010

Medical practice is characterized by various physiological response and uncapacity of prediction, therefore when medical accident occur it's hard to prove medical professionals' mistake. Though medical accident by medical professionals' mistake will be compensated anyhow, about irresistible medical accidents, no one should be not bound to compensate, victims get into very difficult situation. So, the nation don't negligent irresistible medical accidents but compensate anyway. As in the past, to the legal principle's constitution of irresistible medical accidents, theory of liability without fault was adapted, and it was said this theory was illogical in theory of liability with fault. But the subject of compensation to irresistible medical accidents is nation, nation don't participate in medical treatment therefore there is no room to occur mistake. And it is not reasonable to regard medical agency as a truster of public service, to cast to it responsibility of medical accidents. The problem of compensation to irresistible medical accidents is understood under the theory of social compensation. Social compensation is consisted of compensation to sacrifice and contribution to nation and society and compensation to sacrifice revealed under danger, the compensation to irresistible medical accidents belongs to the latter. This is near to concept of relief, is applied to national compensation system supplementarily, and compensation have no option but to compensate minimum. And there are not relation between national compensation system of irresistible medical accidents and proof liability transposition and theory of liability with out fault, merely in side of sharing responsibility burden between medical treater and victim, it is reasonable to discuss transportation of proof liability and compulsive liability insurance together.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.26 no.4
• /
• pp.129-149
• /
• 2016

Medical dispute means the dispute between the hospital and the patient due to a medical accident. In general, medical accidents must be in accordance with the terms that are used in the medical dispute adjustment method stated in Article 2 (definition). In relation to this, there is a need to discuss an efficient operation scheme for Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) in medical disputes. In addition, it is necessary to look at issues of civil liability and criminal liability. In particular, in the consumer dispute arbitration committee, there is a case to make a "decision not to adjust" in aggressive intervention in the process of conflict resolution. The medical staff, on the basis of its "decision," can use this as a proven material for civil and criminal cases. This is rather upon the determination of the consumer council as a typical side effect to defend the user's perspective. This is the "decision" as was expressed from an order, "not adjusted." It is also determined to be easy and clearly timely. In the medical litigation, it is requesting the burden of proof of a patient's cause-and-effect relationship with the doctors committing negligence and medical malpractice. This seems to require the promotion of legislation in the direction to reduce future cases. It is determined that the burden of proof of medical accidents must be improved. The institution receiving the medical accident should prevent a closure report. Further, it is necessary to limit the transition to a franchise point. In this paper, we understand the problems of the current medical dispute resolution system, trying to establish a medical dispute resolution system desirable through an efficient alternative. In addition, it wants help in the protection and realization in medical consumers' and patients' rights. The relevant authorities will take advantage of these measures. After all, this could contribute to the system for a smooth resolution of a medical dispute.

• IE interfaces
• /
• v.15 no.2
• /
• pp.126-132
• /
• 2002

The objective of this study is to provide guidelines for expert witness in product liability lawsuits. The expert testimony is one of the powerful methods to mitigate the burden of the proof in product liability litigations. However, it has been seldomly accepted as a reliable evidence by trial judges because the expert's testimony has sometimes turned out to be illogical and unreliable. In order for the expert testimony to be admittable in the court, the expert should have a thorough understanding of his/her role as an expert witness and follow scientific methodology whose soundness has been generally accepted by both industries and academy.

• Journal of Environmental Health Sciences
• /
• v.42 no.6
• /
• pp.375-384
• /
• 2016

Objectives: This paper analyzes the intersection of tort law and environmental health in a recent court decision. Methods: This paper analyzes Supreme Court Decision 2011Da7437, Decided on September 4, 2014 and related lower court decisions. Results: The plaintiffs sought financial compensation from the defendants, arguing that air pollutants in gases emitted by vehicles produced by the defendants had caused them to acquire respiratory diseases. The district court highlighted the need to mitigate the burden of proof for the plaintiffs, but proceeded to review whether the plaintiffs proved the actual toxicity levels of the air pollutants, whether the defendant's vehicles were the main source of the emissions, the plaintiff's level of exposure to the pollutants, and causation between the emissions and the injury. By doing so, the district court required the plaintiffs to prove both indirect and direct facts of causation, increasing burden of proof for plaintiffs. The appellate court upheld the district court's decision, adding that the defendant's conduct did not constitute an illegal act because it did not violate the emissions standards set by environmental law. The Supreme Court upheld the appellate court's decision, reasoning that the epidemiological evidence cannot establish a direct causation for diseases that lack specificity. Conclusion: This case demonstrates that discussions in environmental health have significance in tort lawsuits. For each fact that the plaintiffs and defendants attempted to prove, environmental health research studies were offered as evidence. In addition, the courts decided the legality of the defendant's conduct based on emission standards set by environmental law.

• Journal of the Korea Institute of Building Construction
• /
• v.10 no.1
• /
• pp.101-109
• /
• 2010

Under the Civil Code and related law in Korea, the liability for defects after delivery belongs to the Contractor. However, various disputes have occurred in relation to the remedy of such defects and the compensation for damages, which are the main liability of a contractor in the event of defects. Despite court decisions regarding defect liability, many problems prevail in the real world. For this reason, this working-level research considers the introduction of a performance warranty contract system. To establish the system successfully, it is necessary to analyze the trend of various warranty cases in the US. Therefore, the warranty system of the US was first examined, and the effect of acceptance, notification and burden of proof, remedies under warranty clauses, and default termination were investigated and analyzed in this study.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.40
• /
• pp.97-144
• /
• 2008

The purpose of this paper is to review the text of national legislation relating to the carrier's liability in respect of the carriage of passengers, baggage and cargo by air in major states such as United Kingdom, Germany, France, Canada, Russia and China, and to compare the air carrier's liability under the national legislations of above states with them under the Warsaw System relating to the international carriage by air. Also this paper reviews the text of the draft legislation relating to the carrier's liability in respect of the carriage by air in Korea. The Warsaw Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules Relating to International Carriage was adopted in 1929. In 1999, the ICAO adopted the Montreal Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air vastly modernizing the unification of private air law. The Montreal Convention replaced the instruments of the “Warsaw System”, and came into force on 4 November 2003. The Montreal Convention is not only an international convention. It has also exercised a considerable influence on national legislation. A the Convention, or certain of its principles, with the object of regulating their national air transport. The main feature of the liability regime of the air carrier under the Montreal Convention is the two-tier liability system for death or injury of the passenger with strict liability up to 100,000 SDR and presumptive liability with a reversed burden of proof without any limit above that threshold. The principles of the liability of the air carrier under the Montreal Convention have been adopted into national legislations by the United Kingdom, Germany, France, Canada, Russia and China. Now the Ministry of Justice of Korea is proceeding to make a new national legislation relating to the liability of the air carrier in respect of the carriage by air. The draft legislation of the Part VI the Carriage by Air of the Commercial Code of Korea has adopted the main principles of the liability of the air carrier under the Montreal Convention. In conclusion, the national legislation relating to the liability of the air carrier in Korea will contribute to settle efficiently the dispute on the carrier's liability in respect of the carriage of passengers, baggage and cargo by air.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.13
• /
• pp.469-492
• /
• 2000

"International Safety Management(ISM) Code" means the International Management Code for the Safe Operation of Ships and for Pollution Prevention as adopted by the Assembly, as may be amended by the International Maritime Organization. This Code have brought into force internationally since 1th July, 1998 by incorporated to the new Chapter Ⅸ in the SOLAS Convention. Accordingly those States which give effect to the SOLAS Convention will have to ensure that rules giving effect to the Code are introduced into their domestic legislation. The purpose of this Code is to provide an international standard for the safe management and operation of ships and for pollution prevention, by this to reduce the maritime casualty which could caused by neglect of person. To achieve this purpose the ISM Code specifies a number of broad 'safety management objectives' for owning or operation companies, and it requires that such companies should establish, implementing and maintain a written Safety Management System(SMS) covering a whole range of safety environmental and related matters. These requirements of the Code could effect on the carrier in some points such as duty of due diligence to care for cargo, due diligence to make the vessel seaworthy and burden of proof etc. In this respect, We should know that the ISM Code could effect on the carrier advantageously or disadvantageously subject to whether the carrier observed the requirement of the ISM Code. Although it does not add cause of liability or increase limitation of liability imposed to the carrier.