• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.17 no.2
• /
• pp.3-28
• /
• 2016

While product liability has been settled as a technical term in civil law, criminal law does not commonly accept technical term for it. Not like civil law, product liability in criminal law point outs individual responsibility and disability of normative order. Meaning that causation between individual's action of violation of duty and the result of danger of legal interest or infringement of legal interest must be proved. In criminal law excluding "non-result-constituted crimes (Unternehmensdelikt)", charge of injuring, accidental infliction of injury, homicide or involuntary manslaughter is problematic in product liability. Of course, it is necessary to distinguish whether the action related to the outcome is act or ommission. Also the causal relationship between the action and the result must be proved, and the intention or negligence should be recognized. In this paper, it analyzes cases that were problematic in Korea, Germany, Spain, etc. Mainly focusing on the problems revealed in the determination of causal relationship, especially recognizing criminal liability related to products. Furthermore it is followed by the view of reviewing the cause-and-effect relationship by 2 steps, dividing natural scientific causation and the normative causal relationship. In this process, to acknowledge criminal product liability in accordance with recognizing cause-and-effect relationship, there should be general risk of specific substance causing the outcome. This only premise can be meaningful to examine the casual relationship from specific cases. As it shows in some cases and theories, it is not contradicting general law of cause and effect by determining specific causal relationship by free evaluation of evidence if a general causal relationship does not exist. Also since judge's testimony does not hold a dominant position from rule of thumb, it is possible to recognize specific causal relationship. However this paper takes position that if there is no objective and reasonably undeniable cause and effect law. If there is no objective and reasonably undeniable causal law, which is the premise for recognizing concrete causal relations, judge should sentence guilty according to "in dubio pro reo" principle. In addition, it is not allowed for the defendant to burden unproven fact by free evaluation of evidence which has an effect of shift of burden of proof.

• Journal of Korean Society of Transportation
• /
• v.28 no.1
• /
• pp.157-163
• /
• 2010

It is well known that weather conditions are closely related with the number and severity of traffic accidents. At present, installation of safety countermeasures including systems is common approach to reduce the damage of traffic accidents at expressways. In this study, the differences of causation factors to influence traffic accidents considering road alignment characteristics and weather conditions. In order to identify the relationship between road and weather conditions, discriminant analysis has been performed with 500 traffic accident data at expressways. Weather conditions are divided into several categories such as snow, sunny, rain, fog, and cloud. Also, road conditions such as types of pavements, grades are analyzed. As the results, major impacting road conditions to traffic accidents are concrete pavement and 3% or more down grades. In these road conditions, visible distance will be reduced and actual braking distances will be increased. This study shows that the expressway sections under concrete pavement and down grades should be more cautious than other sections. It also shows that fog condition is the mose dangerous situation in terms of traffic accidents.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.14 no.2
• /
• pp.281-313
• /
• 2013

A physician has to do his best for the better treatment of his patiensts. But, if a physician cannot remedy his patients because of the lack of hospital facilities, the lack of medical knowledge and etc., the physician must transfer his patients to another suitable hospital immediately. This is called the duty of interhospital transfer of patients. The necessity of interhospital transfer of patients is primarily ocurred in emergency medical care situations. The Supreme Court Decision 2010DO7070 delivered on April 29, 2010 is one of the important decisions related to the duty of interhospital transfer of patients. The Supreme Court ruled that there were the physician's medical malpractice and the causation between the physician's medical malpractice and the death of patient, as the physician has left the patient without due observations for 1 hour and 30 minutes after the caesarean operation inspite of mass bleeding during the operation, and has transferred the patient to another suitable hospital later. And the Supreme Court ruled that the transferring physician has to explain the situation of the patient in detail to the physician being transferred. I agree with the Supreme Court Decision. As decided by the Supreme Court, physicians will treat their patients more carefully and in case of necessity for transfer, physicians will transfer their patients with more caustion. However, the study for this issue should be continued hereafter because concrete standards are not given to lawers and physicians just by the Supreme Court Decisions itself.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.20 no.3
• /
• pp.83-139
• /
• 2019

Recognition of liability for damages due to medical malpractice has been developed largely on the basis of two paths. First is the case where there is an error in a physician's medical practice and this infringes upon the legal interests of life and body, and the compensation for monetary and non-monetary damages incurred from such infringement on life and body becomes an issue. Second is the case where there is a breach of a physician's duty of explanation that results in a infringement on the patient's right of autonomous decision, and the compensation for non-monetary damages incurred from such infringement becomes an issue. However, even if there is a medical error, since it is difficult to prove the causation between the medical error of a physician and the infringement upon legal interests, the physician's responsibility for damage compensation is denied in some cases. Consider, for example, a case where a patient is already in the final stage of cancer and has a very low possibility of a complete recovery even if proper treatment is received from the physician. Here, it is not appropriate to refuse recognition of any damage compensation based on the reason that the possibility of the patient dying is very high even in the absence of a medical error. This is so because, at minimum, non-monetary damage such as psychological suffering is incurred due to the physician's medical error. In such a case, our courts recognize on an exceptional basis consolation money compensation for losing the chance to receive proper treatment. However, since the theoretical system has not been established in minutiae, what comes under the benefit and protection of the law is not clearly explicated. The recent discourse on compensating for damages incurred by patients, even when the causation between the physician's medical error and infringement upon the legal interests of life and body is denied, by establishing a new legal interest is based on the "legal principle of loss of opportunity for treatment." On what should be the substance of the new legal interest, treatment possibility argument, expectation infringement argument, considerable degree of survival possibility infringement argument and loss of opportunity for treatment argument are being put forth. It is reasonable to see the substance of this protected legal interest as "the benefit of receiving treatment appropriate to the medical standard" according to the loss of opportunity for treatment argument. The above benefit to the patient is a value inherent to human dignity that should not be infringed upon or obstructed by anyone, and at the same time, it is a basic desire regarding life and a benefit worthy of protection by law. In this regard, "the benefit of receiving treatment appropriate to the medical standard" can be made concrete as one of the general personal rights related to psychological legal interest.