영국제정법상 불법행위로인한 생명침해의 배상
A Study on the Damages for Indirect Victims(Secondary Victims)
0
조회
0
다운로드
2
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
In tort, when one person causes harm of any kind to another person-whether it is personal injury, or damage to property, or financial loss-the normal remedy which the law gives is a right to recover damages. Furthermore, we may think of the case as following. There are many examples that we can think as the case of indirect victims. For example, it can be considered that workers lost the capacity to work or are dead after being in a car accident. In this case, he cannot support to the wife or child in his family, futhermore, in the workplace he is not able to provide work to his employer. In such matters, the wife and children who did not receive his support or the employer who did not receive his work are the indirect victims. More specifically, the injured man’s employer may loss his work, or his wife or children may give up her work to nurse him. In other words, indirect victim (secondary victim) could be described as the man who is not a direct target of aggression and suffered loss for torts. Where one person sustain loss or incurs expense, as the result of injury to another, do he has in general right of action? This is the main topic in this thesis. For this problem, the following two approach exist. One is the approach that regard the matter of indirect victim as the matter of scope of damages, such as causation. The other is the approach that regard the matter of indirect victim as the examination of negligence whether there is the violation of duty of care. But as the interpretation of Korean Civil law, it has no meaning the conflict of two approach. Because this matter is finally brought to a conclusion the matter of the interpretation of “foreseeability” as the factor of causation or negligence. Because the question is whether the neglect of the duty was a cause of the injury in proper sense of that term, and causation, as well as duty,often depends on what you should foresee. The chain of causation is broken when there is action which we could not reasonably be expected to foresee. In these cases like indirect victim, we will find that the two questions, duty of care(negligence), causation(the scope of damages),run continually into one another. It seems to me that they are simply two different ways of looking at one and the same problem.Starting with the proposition that a negligence person should be liable, within reason,for the consequences of his conduct, the extent of his liability is to be found by asking the one question. Is the consequence fairly to be regarded as within the risk created by the negligence? If so, negligent person is liable for the damage of indirect victim. But otherwise not. Nevertheless, it is not always we come to the same conclusion. Even when the two tests are taken completely, we may reach the different conclusion with the one by the tests. They can be determined by applying common sense, policy or national sentiment to the facts of each particular case. I think the courts should consider the particular relationships of those concerned in the particular circumstances and se whether, as a matter of policy, the damage of indirect victim should be recovered.
Abstract
In tort, when one person causes harm of any kind to another person-whether it is personal injury, or damage to property, or financial loss-the normal remedy which the law gives is a right to recover damages. Furthermore, we may think of the case as following. There are many examples that we can think as the case of indirect victims. For example, it can be considered that workers lost the capacity to work or are dead after being in a car accident. In this case, he cannot support to the wife or child in his family, futhermore, in the workplace he is not able to provide work to his employer. In such matters, the wife and children who did not receive his support or the employer who did not receive his work are the indirect victims. More specifically, the injured man’s employer may loss his work, or his wife or children may give up her work to nurse him. In other words, indirect victim (secondary victim) could be described as the man who is not a direct target of aggression and suffered loss for torts. Where one person sustain loss or incurs expense, as the result of injury to another, do he has in general right of action? This is the main topic in this thesis. For this problem, the following two approach exist. One is the approach that regard the matter of indirect victim as the matter of scope of damages, such as causation. The other is the approach that regard the matter of indirect victim as the examination of negligence whether there is the violation of duty of care. But as the interpretation of Korean Civil law, it has no meaning the conflict of two approach. Because this matter is finally brought to a conclusion the matter of the interpretation of “foreseeability” as the factor of causation or negligence. Because the question is whether the neglect of the duty was a cause of the injury in proper sense of that term, and causation, as well as duty,often depends on what you should foresee. The chain of causation is broken when there is action which we could not reasonably be expected to foresee. In these cases like indirect victim, we will find that the two questions, duty of care(negligence), causation(the scope of damages),run continually into one another. It seems to me that they are simply two different ways of looking at one and the same problem.Starting with the proposition that a negligence person should be liable, within reason,for the consequences of his conduct, the extent of his liability is to be found by asking the one question. Is the consequence fairly to be regarded as within the risk created by the negligence? If so, negligent person is liable for the damage of indirect victim. But otherwise not. Nevertheless, it is not always we come to the same conclusion. Even when the two tests are taken completely, we may reach the different conclusion with the one by the tests. They can be determined by applying common sense, policy or national sentiment to the facts of each particular case. I think the courts should consider the particular relationships of those concerned in the particular circumstances and se whether, as a matter of policy, the damage of indirect victim should be recovered.
참고문헌 (52)
- A.V.Alexander, "The Law of Tort and Non-physical loss: Insurance Aspects", J.S.P.T.L, 12 (1972)
- Bromley, "Family Law, 2nd ed"
- Carpenter, "Interference with Contract Relations", Harv. L. Rev, 41, pp.728~ (1928)
- Champman, "Statutes on the Law of Torts" (1962)
- Charlesworth, "on Negligence, 4th ed", pp.7~ (1962)
- Clerk, "On Torts, 12th ed" (1961)
- Eversley, "Law of Domestic Relations, 6th ed" (1951)
- Francis Bowes Sayre, "Inducing Breach of Contract", Harv. L. Rev, 36, pp.663~ (1923)
- Francis Bowes Sayre, "Inducing Breach of Contract", Harv. L. Rev, 36, pp.663~ (1923)
- Goldhart, "Emotional Shock and the Unimaginative Taxicab Driver", L.Q. Rev, 69, pp.347~ (1953)
- Graeme Peart, "Psychiatric injury claims", J.P.I.Law (2003)
- H.Stoll, "Consequences of liability : Remedies, International encyclopedia of comparative law XI"
- Harper and James, "The Law of Torts", 1 (1956)
- John G Fleming, "Law of Torts, 3rd ed" (1965)
- John G Fleming, "The Law of Torts, 9th ed" (1998)
- Jones, "Per Quod Servitium Amisit", L. Q. Rev, 74, pp.39~49 (1958)
- K.Moumi, "Economic loss: a change in attitude?", New Law Journal (1975)
- K.Thomson, "Negligence and Economic Loss", Modern Law Revieww, 40, pp.714~ (1977)
- Kemp, "The Quantam of Damages, 2nd ed.(Fatal Injury Claims)" (1962)
- L. Green, "The casual relation issue in negligence", Mich. L. Rev, 60 (1962)
- Lawson, "Tortious liability for uninternational harm in the Common law and the Civil law", ~ (1982)
- M.Brazier, "Economic Loss An Australian Solution", New Law Journal, 128, pp.327~ (1978)
- Mauro Bussani, "Pure Economic Loss in Europe" (2003), Cambridge University Press
- Mauro Bussani, "Pure Economic Loss(New Horizons in Comparative Law)" (2009)
- Mayne, "On Damages, 12th ed.(suppl)" (1961)
- Millner, "Growth and Obsolescence in Negligence", Current Legal Problems (1973)
- Millner, "Negligence in Modern Law" (1967)
- Munkmann, "Damages for Personal Injuries and Death, 3rd ed" (1966)
- P.F.Cane, "Recovery for Purely Economic Loss in Australia", Law Quarterly Review, 93, pp.330~ (1977)
- P.S.Atiyah, "Negligence and Economic Loss", L.Q.R, 83
- Payne, "The Tort of Interference with Contract", Current Legal Problems, 7, pp.94~ (1954)
- Pollock, "The Law of Torts, 15th ed" (1951)
- Poulton, "Tort or Contract", L.Q.Rev, 82, pp.346~ (1966)
- Prosser, "Handbook of the Law of Torts, 3rd ed" (1964)
- R.Dwokrin, "Taking Rights Seriously" (1977)
- R.Smith, "The economic loss cases-the light at the end of the tunnel?", Journal of Business Law (1974)
- Salmond, "on the law of Tort, 17th ed" (1977)
- Salmond, "On the Torts, 21th ed" (1996)
- Salmond, "The Law of Torts, 14th ed" (1965)
- Simon Allen, "Post traumatic stress disorder: the claims of primary and secondary victims", J.P.I.Law (2000)
- Simon Allen, "Post traumatic stress disorder: the claims of primary and secondary victims", J.P.I.Law (2000)
- Street, "Principles of Damages" (1962)
- Street, "The law of Torts, 3rd ed" (1963)
- Street, "The Law of Torts, 4th ed" (1968)
- W. Binchhy, "Negligence and Economic Loss", The Modern Law Review, pp.320~ (1974)
- W. V. Horton Rogers, "Damages for Non-Pecuniary Loss in a Comparative Perspective" (2001)
- W.L. Morison, "A re-examination of the duty of care", Mod. L. Rev, 11, pp.9~ (1943)
- W.V,H.Rogers, "Economic Loss in the High Court of Australia", Cambridge Law Journal, pp.27~ (1978)
- William Schofield, "The Principle of Lumley v. Gye, and its Application", Harv. L. Rev, 2, pp.19~ (1888)
- Winfield, "The history of negligence in the law of torts", L.Q.R, 42, pp.195~ (1926)
- Winfield, "The Law of Tort, 6th ed" (1954)
- Winfield, "The Law of Tort, 8th ed" (1967)