자동차 급발진사고와 제조물책임 -미국판례의 소개와 그 시사점-

Abstract

In this article, the author elucidates U.S. legal precedents wherein product liability claims against automobile companies were contested in relation to sudden unintended acceleration. The author also examines the implications these precedents may have on Korean law. The author's main conclusion regarding the liability of automobile companies under Korean Product Liability Act is as follows: First, if the judge can rule out the possibility of the driver's pedal misoperation based on a rule of thumb, the automobile company's product liability should, in principle, be acknowledged. Even if the precise cause and mechanism of the sudden acceleration accident remains undisclosed at current stage, if there is even the slightest possibility of a sudden unintended acceleration due to an inherent vehicle defect on a general level, the possibility should be kept open to affirm product liability in individual cases. However, for this heuristic principle to overcome the current level of scientific knowledge, it must be 'sufficiently' proven through circumstantial evidence that the driver did not mismanage the pedal. Second, if the possibility of the driver's pedal misoperation is denied, the existence of a design defect is presumed according to Article 3-2 of the Product Liability Act, and product liability is acknowledged unless the manufacturer proves that there is no possibility of a reasonable alternative design. Third, in the event that the possibility of the driver's pedal misoperation is ruled out, a general defect is also presumed according to Article 3-2 of the Product Liability Act. In this case, even if the manufacturer successfully demonstrates the infeasibility of a reasonable alternative design, it does not alter the underlying fact that the car falls short of the expected safety standards. If the existence of these general defects is recognized, the automobile company's defense of development risk cannot be upheld. Nevertheless, if the manufacturer has proven that a reasonable alternative design is impossible, it may be appropriate for the court to appropriately reduce the amount of compensation based on the principle of good faith. This is because it is harsh to impose the full amount of damages on a manufacturer who has made best effort to achieve the highest standards. Fourth, in a preemptive and proactive stance, the defendant automobile company must prove, grounded in scientific evidence, the absence of any defects in the automobile in order to prevent the presumption of a defect.