• Journal of the Korean Professional Engineers Association
• /
• v.32 no.3
• /
• pp.26-31
• /
• 1999

• The monthly packaging world
• /
• s.108
• /
• pp.173-179
• /
• 2002

• Journal of the Korean Society for Heat Treatment
• /
• v.16 no.2
• /
• pp.110-112
• /
• 2003

• Journal of the Korean Society of Safety
• /
• v.20 no.2 s.70
• /
• pp.140-145
• /
• 2005

The PL(Product Liability) Law has been going into effect in Korea since July 2002. Accordingly, a company's responsibility for customers who are damaged by the defect in the product safety has been gradually strict and imposed burden on management. Not only general consumers but also labors who work with machine in the field of production are included in the concept of victim of the PL Law. That is to say, when a worker is damaged by the defect of machine he can institute a PL lawsuit more aggressively, not just get the industrial accident compensation as usual, only if not his own fault but the defect of machine used in the course of production can be demonstrated. This paper intends to present suggestions to PL prevention of manufacturing companies of industrial machine through the case research of PL accidents in the area of industrial safety.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.5
• /
• pp.101-118
• /
• 1993

Generally there is no law and liability system which applies particulary to commercial space ventures. There are several international treaties and national statutes which deal with space ventures, but their impact on the liability of commercial space ventures has not been significant. Every state law in the United States will impose both tort and contract liability on those responsible for injuries or losses caused by defective products or by services performed negligently. As with the providers of other products and services, those who participate in commercial space ventures have exposure to liability in both tort and contract which is limited to the extent of the resulting damage The manufacturer of a small and cheap component which caused a satellite to fail to reach orbit or to operate nominally has the same exposure to liability as the provider of launch vehicle or the manufacturer of satellite into which the component was incorporaded. Considering the enormity of losses which may result from launch failure or satellite failure, those participated in commercial space ventures will do their best to limit their exposure to liability by contract to the extent permitted by law. In most states of the United States, contracts which limit or disclaim the liability are enforceable with respect to claims for losses or damage to property if they are drafted in compliance with the requirements of the applicable law. In California an attempt to disclaim the liability for one's own negligence will be enforceable only if the contract states explicitly that the parties intend to have the disclaimer apply to negligence claims. Most state laws of the United States will refuse to enforce contracts which attempt to disclaim the liability for gross negligence on public policy grounds. However, the public policy which favoured disclaiming the liability as to gross negligence for providers of launch services was pronounced by the United States Congress in the 1988 Amendments to the 1984 Commercial Space Launch Act. To extend the disclaimer of liability to remote purchasers, the contract of resale should state expressly that the disclaimer applies for the benefit of all contractors and subcontractors who participated in producing the product. This situation may occur when the purchaser of a satellite which has failed to reach orbit has not contracted directly with the provider of launch services. Contracts for launch services usually contain cross-waiver of liability clauses by which each participant in the launch agrees to be responsible for it's own loss and to waive any claims which it may have against other participants. The crosswaiver of liability clause may apply to the participants in the launch who are parties to the launch services agreement, but not apply to their subcontractors. The role of insurance in responding to many risks has been critical in assisting commercial space ventures grow. Today traditional property and liability insurance, such as pre-launch, launch and in-orbit insurance and third party liability insurance, have become mandatory parts of most space projects. The manufacture and pre-launch insurance covers direct physical loss or damage to the satellite, its apogee kick moter and including its related launch equipment from commencement of loading operations at the manufacture's plant until lift off. The launch and early orbit insurance covers the satellite for physical loss or damage from attachment of risk through to commissioning and for some period of initial operation between 180 days and 12 months after launch. The in-orbit insurance covers physical loss of or damage to the satellite occuring during or caused by an event during the policy period. The third party liability insurance covers the satellite owner' s liability exposure at the launch site and liability arising out of the launch and operation in orbit. In conclusion, the liability in commercial space ventures extends to any organization which participates in providing products and services used in the venture. Accordingly, it is essential for any organization participating in commercial space ventures to contractually disclaim its liability to the extent permitted by law. To achieve the effective disclaimers, it is necessary to determine the applicable law and to understand the requirements of the law which will govern the terms of the contract. A great deal of funds have been used in R&D for commercial space ventures to increase reliability, safety and success. However, the historical reliability of launches and success for commercial space ventures have proved to be slightly lower than we would have wished for. Space insurance has played an important role in reducing the high risks present in commercial space ventures.

• The Transactions of the Korean Institute of Electrical Engineers P
• /
• v.58 no.4
• /
• pp.632-632
• /
• 2009

The purpose of this study is to present the range of defects mentioned in the Product Liability (PL) and to establish an objective basis and grounds for the analysis of accidents expected to happen by analyzing and presenting the external flame pattern and electrical characteristics of an LED streetlight lamp, a new lighting lamp. From the analysis of the cross-section of a cable carbonized by an external flame, it was observed that the wire's strand and insulation material had solidly adhered, and that greater voids were formed at the surface than at the center. Irregular carbide lumps were formed in the globe directly exposed to the flame, and the globe carbonized by the indirect flame showed characteristics that they had melted and flowed downward. It was found that the forward and backward resistances of the normal LED were approximately 1.74 [$M{\Omega}$] and 140 [$M{\Omega}$], respectively. The lamp burnt by the strong flame exhibited infinite forward and backward resistances and the LED did not emit light. The carbonized LED lamp was gray and exhibited fine delaminations. According to the Product Liability, a product defect signifies a simple product defect. Most of the defects were caused by the lack of stability, and the defect of the product itself occurred during the design and manufacture. The defects in warnings and markings include an insufficiency of handling manuals and warnings, expressive warranty violations, defective markings, etc. In order to prevent an accident resulting from a product, it is necessary to prepare safety warnings and documentation, establish clear-cut lines of liabilities, and subscribe insurances. However, it could be seen that important factors against the Product Liability were product improvement, response to compensation requests and law suits, credit restoration, etc.

• Journal of Advanced Navigation Technology
• /
• v.21 no.3
• /
• pp.230-242
• /
• 2017

A significant rise in product-liability cost is expected due to the newly passed product liability amendment Bill approved during the assembly plenary session on March 30, 2017. Korean government legal service(KGLS) filed a damage suit against Korea aerospace industries, Ltd.(KAI) and Hanwha Techwin Co., Ltd., the manufactures of the KUH-1 Surion helicopter crashed. KGLS alleged claims under the product liability Act, the warrant liability Act and the non-performance of contract act. The accountability limits of military aircraft manufacturers was a highly divisive issue among related scholars and legal practitioners. The bottom line was that military aircraft manufacturers had no product-liability insurance available. The United States courts have, therefore, developed the government contractor defense(GCD) and it was recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court in Boyle v. United Technologies corporation(1988). product liability insurances for military aircraft manufacturers are excessively expensive and it cannot be added onto the military procurement cost accounting. However, having an aircraft accident without one can be ruinously expensive. Therefore, the manufacturers should promptly set up appropriate risk management measures. This thesis will first review the advance GCD theory, and then find a way to either reform government contract related regulations.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.15 no.2
• /
• pp.63-89
• /
• 2014

In 1976, the Dalkon Shield-intrauterine device injured several thousand women in U.S.A. which caused the changes of medical deivce regulation. The Medical Device Regulation Act or Medical Device Amendments of 1976 (MDA) was introduce. As part of the process of regulating medical devices, the MDA divides medical devices into three categories. The class II, and III devices which have moderate harm or more can use the section 510 (k), premarket notification process if the manufacturer can establish that its device is "substantially equivalent" to a device that was marketed before 1976. In 21 U.S.C. ${\S}$ 360k(a), MDA introduced a provision which expressly preempts competing state laws or regulations. After that, the judicial debates had began over the proper interpretation and application of Section 360(k) In February 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Riegel v. Medtronic that manufacturer approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)'s pre-market approval process are preempted from liability, even when the devices have defective design or lack of labeling. But the Supreme Court ruled in Medtronic Inc. v. Lora Lohr that the manufactures which use the section 510 (k) process cannot be preempted and in Bausch v. Stryker Corp. that manufactures which violated the CGMP standard are also liable to the damage of patient at the state courts. In 2009, the Supreme Court ruled in Wyeth v. Levine that patients harmed by prescription drugs can claim damages in state courts. This may cause a double standard between prescription drugs and medical devices. FDA Preemption is the legal theory in the United States that exempts product manufacturers from tort claims regarding Food and Drug Administration approved products. FDA Preemption has been a highly contentious issue. In general, consumer groups are against it while the FDA and pharmaceutical manufacturers are in favor of it. This issues also influences the theory of product liability of U.S.A. Complete immunity preemption is an issue need to be more declared.

• Journal of the Korea Safety Management & Science
• /
• v.4 no.1
• /
• pp.81-92
• /
• 2002

The modern society is changed into mass production, complicated circulation society and mass consuming society because of the development of the fast science technology since the occurrence of the industrial revolution. Also, the human life style is changed into the abundant consumption society because of the appearance of the various products. The society change like the above provide comfortable life to us. but We are facing with danger for the bad food, illegal medicines and bad products. So, To solve the danger like the above, The Product Reliability Law be made. The both The enterprise and consumer need The Product Reliability Law to protect one's own interest. The consumer is claiming to use the product of safety of the resonable price and good quality in modern society, So, 1 studied on countermeasures of domestic enterprise to increase the competitive power of the enterprise according to Product Reliability Law

• Journal of Korean Society for Quality Management
• /
• v.30 no.4
• /
• pp.164-173
• /
• 2002

The first product liability laws went into effect in Korea in July 2002. A person who suffers personal injury or damage to property due to defects in a product may sue both the manufacturer and the seller of the product under the principles of Korea tort law. This paper presents an integrated methodology which is called the QDRD(Quality deployment and reliability deployment) for hazards analysis in new product designs. QDRD applies QFD, FMEA and FTA to identify the hazards component, hazardous situations and hazardous events which could lead to an accident. An example is provided to demonstrate hazards analysis on a product using the QDRD method.