제조물책임과 사후구제조치 증거
Product Liability and Subsequent Remedial Measures as Evidence
0
조회
0
다운로드
1
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
The manufacturers who make products by the negligence or who make the products on the chain of sale with defects would have product liability to the injuries of plaintiff. The manufacturers would take a subsequent remedial measures in order to make the products safe and to improve the performance of the products. However, there has been legal issues that the evidence of the subsequent remedial measures would be admissible as the evidence to prove the negligence of manufacturers or the product's defects. Almost all Canadian courts have reached the decision that the subsequent remedial measures would be admissible in the discovery based on the notion that these have relevance with the issued matter. However the Canadian courts have had different decisions state by state on the admissibility of the subsequent remedial measures which introduced in the trial. In the United States, on the early stage of the product liability the courts had different decisions on this matter. However this issue was resolved by the enactment of the Federal Rule of Evidence § 407 which clearly describes that the evidence of subsequent remedial measures is not admissible to prove negligence, culpable conduct, a defect in a product, a defect in a product's design, or a need for warning or instruction. But the Rule also describes that the subsequent remedial measures shall be admissible to prove ownership, control, or feasibility of precautionary measure, if controverted, or impeachment. Although the Rule was introduced, there have been so many cases, court decisions and academic articles related to the issue. After severe controversies and discussions, the Product Liability Act of Korea was enacted at 2002. In Korea the legal issues on product liability have usually focused on the requirements of the product liability, manufacturing defects, design defects and causation. There have been no court decisions and academic articles related to the product liability and subsequent remedial measures as evidence. Under the Korean legal system, there is no jury to decide the relevance of evidence. However, with the Principle of Free Evaluation of Evidence, the probative value of the evidence shall be left to the discretion of the judge. Therefore the subsequent remedial measures would be admissible to prove negligence, culpable conduct, a defect in a product, a defect in a product's design, or a need for warning or instruction. Now it is the high time to review on the issues related to subsequent remedial measures under the Korean legal system. In addition, the cases, court decisions and academic articles related to the subsequent remedial measures in Canada and United States would be great helpful to review the legal issues on Product Liability Act in Korea.
Abstract
The manufacturers who make products by the negligence or who make the products on the chain of sale with defects would have product liability to the injuries of plaintiff. The manufacturers would take a subsequent remedial measures in order to make the products safe and to improve the performance of the products. However, there has been legal issues that the evidence of the subsequent remedial measures would be admissible as the evidence to prove the negligence of manufacturers or the product's defects. Almost all Canadian courts have reached the decision that the subsequent remedial measures would be admissible in the discovery based on the notion that these have relevance with the issued matter. However the Canadian courts have had different decisions state by state on the admissibility of the subsequent remedial measures which introduced in the trial. In the United States, on the early stage of the product liability the courts had different decisions on this matter. However this issue was resolved by the enactment of the Federal Rule of Evidence § 407 which clearly describes that the evidence of subsequent remedial measures is not admissible to prove negligence, culpable conduct, a defect in a product, a defect in a product's design, or a need for warning or instruction. But the Rule also describes that the subsequent remedial measures shall be admissible to prove ownership, control, or feasibility of precautionary measure, if controverted, or impeachment. Although the Rule was introduced, there have been so many cases, court decisions and academic articles related to the issue. After severe controversies and discussions, the Product Liability Act of Korea was enacted at 2002. In Korea the legal issues on product liability have usually focused on the requirements of the product liability, manufacturing defects, design defects and causation. There have been no court decisions and academic articles related to the product liability and subsequent remedial measures as evidence. Under the Korean legal system, there is no jury to decide the relevance of evidence. However, with the Principle of Free Evaluation of Evidence, the probative value of the evidence shall be left to the discretion of the judge. Therefore the subsequent remedial measures would be admissible to prove negligence, culpable conduct, a defect in a product, a defect in a product's design, or a need for warning or instruction. Now it is the high time to review on the issues related to subsequent remedial measures under the Korean legal system. In addition, the cases, court decisions and academic articles related to the subsequent remedial measures in Canada and United States would be great helpful to review the legal issues on Product Liability Act in Korea.
참고문헌 (20)
- 박경재, "제조물의 결함과 입증책임", 법학연구, 48(2), pp.153~185 (2008), 법학연구소
- 박동진, "제조물책임법에서의 손해배상", 비교사법, 9(3), pp.~35 (2002), 한국비교사법학회
- 윤석찬, "製造物責任法을 통한 消費者保護와 그 爭點들", 민사법학, (40), pp.57~96 (2008), 한국민사법학회
- 윤진수, "한국의 제조물 책임 - 판례와 입법", 법조, 통권 : 550 (2002)
- 문성제, "제조물책임의 이론적 기초", 비교법학연구, 5 (2005)
- 장영진, "미국법강의" (2008), 세창출판사
- C.B. Montgomery, "The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse in Products Liability Actions: Subsequent Remedial Measures, Similar Accident, Recalls and Foreign Defendants. in: Product Liability Defense Practice Seminar Course Book" (1999), Defense Research Institute, Inc
- David G. Owen, "Product Liability and Safety" (2007), Foundation Press
- Douglas R. Richmond, "Subsequent Remedial Measures and the Problem of Impeachment" (2002), The Practical Litigator
- Eric L. Vinson, "Applying Federal Rule of Evidence 407 in Strict Liability : A Discussion of Changes to the Rule", Rev. Liting., 16 (1997)
- Lawrence G. Theall, "A Product Liability: Canadian Law and Practice" (2001), Canada Law Book Inc
- Marc A. Franklin, "Tort and Alternatives" (2001), Foundation Press
- Marcle J. Freeman, "Spanning The Spectrum; Proposed Amendments to Federal Rule of Evidence 407", Tex. TechL. Rev., 28 (1997)
- Marcle W. Blanton, "Application of Federal Rule of Evidence 407 in Strict Products Liability Cases: the Evidence Weighs Against Automatic Exclusion", UMKC L. Rev, 65 (1996)
- Mark Boyko, "Who Know? Admissibility of Subsequent Remedial Measures When Defendants are Without Knowledge of the Injuries", McGeorge Law Review, 38 (2007)
- Michael H. Graham, "Evidence: Text, Rules, Illustrations and Problems" (1983), the National Institute for Trial Advocacy
- "Introduction Lecture on Evidence-Fall" (2004)[URL]
- Paul R. Rice, "Evidence: Common Law and Federal Rules of Evidence, Mattew Bender 5th ed", ~ (2005)
- Ralph Ruebner, "A Proposal to Amend Rule 407 of the Federal Rules of Evidence to Conform With the Underlying Relevancy Rational for the Rule in Negligence and Strict Liability Actions", Secton Hall Circuit Review, 3, pp.435~ (2007)
- "the Product Recalls as Subsequent Remedial Measures and the Use of Federal Rule of Evidence 407 in Product Liability Cases"[URL]