식품사고와 제조물책임

Abstract

In general, manufacturers and other suppliers are liable for injuries caused by defects in products that they sell. Originally, a person injured by a product had no cause of action against a manufacturer unless that person was in privity of contract with the manufacturer. The idea of strict liability in products liability cases was first introduced in the 1944 California decision of Escola v. Coca Cola Bottling Co., Nowadays strict liability is adopted worldwide. The Product Liability Directive was adopted in July 1985, on May 20, 1997, the final draft of the Restatement (Third) was adopted. Korean Product Liability Law was established in January 2000. The principle of strict liability of the producer means that a producer may be held responsible for damage caused by a defective product it has put on the market even in the absence of fault. According to the Product Liability Law, the injured person is required to prove: (1) the damage; (2) the defect; and (3) the causal link between the defect and the damage. Additionally in case of food accident, it is a problem whether food is a product. Primary agricultural products are subject to the same strict liability principle as all other products in USA and EU, not in Korea. Courts typically distinguish between manufacturing defects, design defects, and defective warnings. A manufacturing defect is a one-of-a-kind condition that arises because of a flaw in the production process. Design defects occur when every product in a particular production line that conforms to the intended design has the same dangerous characteristic. Finally, a product may be defective if the seller fails to provide adequate warnings or instructions. Over the years, courts have used a variety of tests in design defect cases, the two most important being the consumer expectation test and the risk-utility test. Significantly, the Restatement (Third) adopted the risk-utility analysis for design defectiveness and relegated the consumer expectation test to res ipsa-type defect cases. In EU, this defect is tied to consumer expectation and is defined in Article 6, Section 1 of the Directive. Unlike Restatement (Second) Section 402A, the Restatement (Third) makes a "reasonable alternative design" a requirement in design defect cases. In the United States, product liability law is moving back to a negligence standard for design defect cases. Generally speaking, manufacturers are exempt from liability for design defects that reflect unavoidable risks. It is argued that the development risk defense cannot exist within a strict liability system. Particularly in France and resulted in delays in the adoption of the Directive. However, product sellers ordinarily have no duty to warn consumers about risks that are obvious or commonly known. Consequently, due to the specific characteristics of food when discussing the product liability laid down in the Product Liability Law and considering possible modifications to it,