• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.9 no.1
• /
• pp.9-56
• /
• 2008

The medical practice does not always get a satisfatory result since the disease progress of patients are depended on patients' physical constitution and the doctors cannot control the outcomes about patients' physiological and biological reaction after the treatment. Moreover, the medical practice may bring wrong result fatalistically because of the unpredictablility of life. To demand for compensation of the damage to the doctors about these wrong result, the patient side holds the burden of proof that is between medical practice and demage, and there is damage from doctor's malpractice according to the accepted theory about the fundamental principle of distribution of the burden of proof. This falls not only under the liability of Tort Law, but also liability of Contract Law. However, the patient may be in difficult situation to prove the malpractice of doctors since he or she cannot recognize the facts because he or she was in unconscious while the medical practice was conducted, or they cannot judge precisely even though they recognize the facts. Nevertheless, the lawsuits against medical malpractice are the field that never achieves the equality of arms since the most of the evidence belong to the doctor's side. Hence, to maintain the principle of the equality of arms under the constitution, the theory leads to alleviate the burden of proof that patients hold. However, the doctors cannot be asked for the burden of proof that they conduct medical practice without errors. Because the doctors may experience difficulty to prove their innocence as the patients because of the unique characteristic that medical practices have. Therefore, the methods of the alleviation of the patient's burden of proof should have the equality of arms and the equal opportunity between the patients and the doctors with the evaluation of the justifiable interest from both the patients and the doctors. As the methods of the alleviation of the burden of proof, the alleviation of the demands and the degree of the burden of proof or resolutely the conversion of the burden may be considered. However, Recognizing the exception from general principle with converting the burden of proof is not proper in principle because the doctors may experience difficulty of the proof as the patients may have. If the difficulty of proof can be resolved by alleviating of the demands and the degree of the burden of proof, it is more desirable resolution rather than converting the burden of proof.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.15 no.2
• /
• pp.435-459
• /
• 2014

Supreme Court of Korea has been mitigating the burden of proof on the malpractice and causal relation by a patient in accordance with the practical transfer of such burden of proof on causal relation as well as relieving a doctor's burden of proof on mistake in the civil damage claim suits on the malpractice. However, a prosecutor shall strictly prove the causal relation between malpractice and unfavorable results as well as a doctor's mistake in the criminal cases for making a doctor accept the professional negligence resulting in death or injury in accordance with In Dubio Pro Reo principles. Furthermore, it shall not be allowed to relieve the burden of proof on malpractice and causal relation which has been frequently applied in the civil proceedings. Nevertheless, it was widely known that the front-line courts accepted the malpractice and causal relation by quoting the legal principles on relieving the burden of proof on malpractice and causal relation applied in the civil cases even in criminal cases with no or insufficient proof on malpractice or causal relation. However, the latest precedents in Supreme Court explicitly declared the opinion that there was no reason to apply the legal principle to relieve the burden of proof on the malpractice and causal relation in the criminal cases requiring the proof 'which doesn't cause any reasonable doubt' on malpractice and causal relation in accordance with the legal principles 'favorable judgment for a defendant in case of any doubt' on the basis of the strict principle of 'nulla poena sine lege.' Accordingly, Supreme court definitely clarified that there would be no reason to relieve the burden of proof on malpractice and causal relation in criminal cases by reversing several original judgments accepting malpractice and causal relation even though there were no strict evidence.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.9 no.1
• /
• 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 INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.71
• /
• pp.147-170
• /
• 2016

International maritime law conventions concerned with cargo liabilities have sought to achieve solutions which will be acceptable to a wide range of states. The Rotterdam Rules was approved by the UN Assembly on 11 December 2008. The Rotterdam Rules are intended to replace The Hague and Hamburg Rules. This paper is comparing The Rotterdam Rules with The Hague and Hamburg Rules for the carrier' liabilities and exceptions in order to find carrier' liability System, the burden of proof and exceptions in the International maritime Rules. The purpose of this paper is considering the carrier's principal recourse for defending himself inmost cargo claims. The first area analyze the transfer of carrier's fundamental Liability system in the International Rules. The second is the matter on the appointment of proof in order to establish liability or to be relieve of liability. And the third is the change of the carrier's possible exclusions from liability in the International maritime Rules. From the result of the said analysis, my paper suggests differences of the exclusions in the Rotterdam Rules comparing with the Hague and Hamburg Rules, and features of the Rotterdam Rules appling exceptions on the basis of the Hague and Hamburg Rules with regard to carrier's liability and burden of proof. The former is the inclusion of three exclusions, the deleted natural fault, and The provision making the carrier responsible for the acts of its servants or agents in the 'fire on the ship' of the Rotterdam Rules. The latter is deleting the principle of overriding obligation related to carrier's obligation of seaworthiness in the Rotterdam Rules, the burden of proof being diverted from the carrier to the carrier and the shipper in the cargo damage caused by two factors(one for which the carrier was liable and the other for which it was excusable) in the new rules.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.22 no.2
• /
• 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."

• Journal of Korean Society of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene
• /
• v.25 no.2
• /
• pp.115-125
• /
• 2015

Objectives: The major objectives of this study are to review the EU CLP Regulations to propose ways of improving the reliability of MSDS and labels. Methods: To review the EU CLP Regulations, we used EU documents including directives and regulations on chemical management. In addition, we used EU governmental agency reports to illuminate the history and background of the CLP. We found the EU CLP's instruments for reliable hazard communication and evaluated the operations of the instruments. Results: EU CLP Regulations have four instruments for the EU CLP Regulations to make hazard communication reliable. These instruments are GHS, the harmonized CMR and respiratory sensitive substances classification list, C&L inventory and restriction of trade secrets. These are highly useful for achieving the objectives of REACH and CLP(no data-no market and changing the burden of proof). Conclusions: Changing the burden of proof is a key principle for achieving a society safe from hazardous chemicals. Chemical manufacturers and importers alone should bear the responsibility for reliable MSDS. We recommend benchmarking the EU CLP Regulations in order to change efficiently the burden of proof. Trade secrets should be limited to low-hazard substances and be approved by the government before the chemical product is on the market. Like the C&L inventory, chemical product information including substances identification and hazard properties should be notified, aggregated and be opened to public on the Internet. Finally, we recommend a MSDS registration system once again.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.8 no.2
• /
• pp.195-204
• /
• 2007

It is a general principle that the plaintiff takes burden of proof about negligence and causation in a civil compensation litigation. And it is the same in a medical malpractice lawsuit. Korean courts have made diverse efforts to mitigate the plaintiff's duty to prove in medical malpractice lawsuits under the name of justice and impartiality. One of those theoretical attempt is 'presumption of causation'. The Supreme Court, since 1995, has developed a new logic for the theory of 'presumption of causation' which is characterized by a phrase "layman's common sense". The Court presumes the defendant's negligence and causation when the plaintiff alleges and proves the facts which can be pointed out and expressed by a layman with common sense. And if the defendant fails to prove that the result was caused by other fact than own medical activities, the defendant shall be defeated. I realize that this theory has problem for justice and impartiality. I would say that two fators should be considered and added to this logic. First,are defendant's acts generally belonging to gross negligence which would cause that kind of bad result? Second, is it recognized that there would be the causation generally and statistically between the cause and the result?

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.49
• /
• pp.139-164
• /
• 2011

Traditionally courts have been adopted over the years two standards of dealing with compliance of documents such as strict compliance and substantial compliance and the substantial compliance, which was somewhat less demanding than the strict compliance. However the new guidelines of ICC's international standard banking practice for the examination of documents under documentary credits set up how the UCP is to be applied in practice. The payment obligations of an issuing bank to a beneficiary are independence of the performance or the nonperformance of any contract underlying the letter of credit. However, strictly applying the principle of independence and abstraction could produce unfair results by operating unjustly enrich an unscrupulous beneficiary in case of fraud. Accordingly, when a beneficiary presents complying documents, the issuing bank is bound to honour the presentation unless the fraud rule applies on the facts of the case such as forged or material fraud. If it does, the issuing bank(issuer) needs not pay despite the complying presentation of documents by the beneficiary under the Uniform Commercial Code Article 5-109 and case law in America. However the fraud rule was not addressed in UCP 600. In conclusion, view in terms of legal principle and the court cases is variable and difficult to honour or dishonour the presentation in case of application of the independence principle and fraud rule such as the problems on burden of proof timely, possibility of granting injunction in order to protect against victim for bona fide applicant.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.16 no.2
• /
• pp.159-193
• /
• 2015

Owing to causes such as population aging, increased use of various medical devices, long-term hospitalization of various patients with reduced immune function such as cancer, diabetes, and organ transplant patients, and the growing size of hospitals, hospital infections are continuing to increase. As seen in the MERS crisis of 2015, hospital infections have become a social and national problem. In order to prevent damage due to such hospital infections, it is necessary to first strictly implement measures to prevent hospital infections, while, on the other hand, providing proper relief of damage suffered due to hospital infections. However, the mainstream attitude of judicial precedents relating to hospital infection cases has been judged to in fact shift responsibility over damages due to hospital infections on the patient. In light of the philosophy of the damage compensation system, whose guiding principle if the fair and proper apportionment of damages, there is a need to seek means of drastically relaxing the burden of proof on the patient's side relative to conventional legal principles for relaxing the burden of proof, or the theory of de facto estimation. In relation to such need, the German civil code (Burgerliches Gesetzbuch), which defines contracts of medical treatment as typical contracts under the civil code, and has presumption of negligence provisions stipulating that, in cases such as hospital infections which were completely under the control of the medical care providers, if risks in general medical treatment have been realized which cause violations of the life, body, or health of patients, error on the part of the person providing medical care is presumed, was examined. Contracts of medical treatment are entered into very frequently and broadly in the everyday lives of the general public, with various disputes owing thereto arising. Therefore, it is necessary to, by defining contracts of medical treatment as typical contracts under the civil code, regulate the content of said contracts, as well as the proof of burden when disputes arise. If stipulations in the civil code are premature as of yet, an option may be to regulate through a special act, as is the case with France. In the case of hospital infection cases, it is thought that 'legal presumption of negligence' relating to 'negligence in the occurrence of hospital infections,' which will create a state close to equality of arms, will aid the resolution of the realistic issue of the de facto impossibility of remedying damages occurring due to negligence in the process of occurrence of hospital infections. Also, even if negligence is presumed by law, as the patient side is burdened with proving the causal relationships, such drastic confusion as would occur if the medical care provider side is found fully liable if a hospital infection occurs may be avoided. It is thought that, alongside such efforts, social insurance policy must be improved so as to cover the expenses of medical institutions having strictly implemented efforts to prevent hospital infections in the event that they have suffered damages due to a hospital infection accident, and that close future research and examination into this matter will be required.

• 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'.