• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.22 no.1
• /
• pp.89-110
• /
• 2012

No-fault automobile insurance system is a statutory scheme to provide automobile accident victims with compensation for certain expenses arising from personal injuries occurring in car accidents. New York State has enacted No-Fault Law to ensure that the injured in automobile accidents be paid rapidly by their own insurance company for medical expenses, lost earnings regardless of fault, replacing common law system of reparation for personal injuries under tort law. Its primary purpose is to facilitate compensation without the need to exhaust time-consuming litigation over establishing the existence of fault and the extent of damages. No-Fault Law allows arbitration as a method for settling the no-fault insurance disputes. No-fault arbitration, however, differs in a significant way from general arbitration system. First, No-Fault Law provides the parties with the option to submit any dispute involving no-fault automobile insurance to arbitration. Second, no-fault arbitration attempts to speed its procedure incorporating various methods. Third, the parties are required to seek review of arbitral awards by master arbitrator prior to seeking court's review. Fourth, the parties have right to bring de novo action in court if master arbitrator's award exceeds $5,000. Given the current state of law in Korea, it may not be easy to introduce no-fault arbitration system into Korea in the context of automobile insurance disputes settlement as its law has a long-established reparation system based on tort liability and no-fault arbitration system has its own features that differ from general arbitration system. Nonetheless, it could be suggested that no-fault arbitration be introduced in other fields which require speedy dispute resolution and a third party's decision to settle the disputes. The optional right of submitting disputes to arbitration as provided by No-Fault Law of New York State may offer a ground to supprot the effectiveness of an optional arbitration agreement.

• Electric Engineers Magazine
• /
• v.241 no.9
• /
• pp.40-44
• /
• 2002

제조물책임법은 현재 본 제도를 도입하여 입법화하는 국가들의 특수성에 따라 법의 제정 형식과 내용 등이 서로 상이하며 특히 미국은 제조물책임법을 세계에서 처음으로 적용한 국가로 유명하다. 미국은 1964년 캘리포니아주 대법원이 처음으로 제조물 생산자의 무과실 책임을 판례로 채택한 이후 70년대 들어 각 주에서 이 판례를 채택함으로써 소비자 보호에 크게 기여했다는 평을 듣고 있으며 1970년에서 80년대 들어서는 결함 제조물책임 원칙이 비약적으로 발전하였으나 소송의급증으로 제조업계 및 책임보험업계가 위기에 직면하기도 했다.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.23 no.2
• /
• pp.31-66
• /
• 2008

Until Montreal Convention was established in 1999, the Warsaw System is undoubtedly accepted private international air law treaty and has played major role on the carrier's liability in international aviation transport industry. But the whole Warsaw System, though it was revised many times to meet the rapid developments of the aviation transport industry, is so complicated, tangled and outdated. This thesis, therefore, aim to introduce the Montreal Convention by interpreting it as a new legal instrument on the air carrier's liability, specially on the passenger's, and analyzing all the issues relating to it. The Montreal Convention markedly changed the rules governing international carriage by air. The Montreal Convention has modernized and consolidated the old Warsaw System of international instruments of private international air law into one legal instrument. One of the most significant features of the Montreal Convention is that it sifted its priority to the protection of the interest of the consumers from the protection of the carrier which originally the Warsaw Convention intended to protect the fledgling international air transport business. Two major features of the Montreal Convention adopts are the Two-tier Liability System and the Fifth Jurisdiction. In case of death or bodily injury to passengers, the Montreal Convention introduces a two-tier liability system. The first tier includes strict liability up to 100,000SDR, irrespective of carriers' fault. The second tier is based on presumption of fault of carrier and has no limit of liability. Regarding Jurisdiction, the Montreal Convention expands upon the four jurisdiction in which the carrier could be sued by adding a fifth jurisdiction, i.e., a passenger can bring suit in a country in which he or she has their permanent and principal residence and in which the carrier provides a services for the carriage of passengers by either its own aircraft or through a commercial agreement. Other features are introducing the advance payment, electronic ticketing, compulsory insurance and regulation on the contracting and actual carrier etc. As we see some major features of the Montreal Convention, the Convention heralds the single biggest change in the international aviation liability and there can be no doubt it will prevail the international aviation transport world in the future. Our government signed this Convention on 20th Sep. 2007 and it came into effect on 29th Dec. 2007 domestically. Thus, it was recognized that domestic carriers can adequately and independently manage the change of risks of liability. I, therefore, would like to suggest our country's aviation industry including newly-born low cost carrier prepare some countermeasures domestically that are necessary to the enforcement of the Convention.