수의사의 애완동물 수의료과오행위에 대한 손해배상책임
Veterinary Malpractice Liability in the Care of Pet-Animal
1
조회
0
다운로드
8
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
What is the actual worth of a particular pet animal to a particular individual? Should the legal system recognize or respond to these valuations? And if so, how?It has recently been shown that pet-animal is treated like pet owner' family with affection. People really love their pets, invest sizable emotional and financial sums in caring for them, and want to do everything they can to reduce the chance that such beloved companions will endure unnecessary harm. Although our Code of Civil Law does not have like German Code of Civil Law §90(a), we don't have to treat legally pet animal as things classified as mere property. Japanese courts actually are moving closer to consensus on the pet animal valuation. It may increase claim for the malpractice liability of veterinarians in our country. When matters veterinarian negligece, courts shoud consider various factors on a case-by-case basis, for example, different kind, purpose, relations of animal and so on. In the veterinary malpractice litigation, courts have to decide like human doctor's malpratice. And courts are necessary to consider the emotional impact of pet loss. It's not justifiable still limit pet owners to recovering only market value damages for the negligent or intentional deaths of their pet animals. If civil courts allows not more than market value damages in cases of veterinary malfeasance, human victims of veterinary negligence are not fully compensated for the emotional and financial investments made in their pet animals. It's the problem of equity. And the inability to recover more than nominal damages financially precludes owners actually harmed by veterinary malpractice from even seeking civil redress in the courts. This preclusion in turn prevents any meaningful judicial oversight to ensure that veterinarians are adequately conforming to the level of care expected by pet owners and the rest of our society. It's the problem of fairness. Accordingly, courts positively must allow consolation money about pet owner's emotional damage.
Abstract
What is the actual worth of a particular pet animal to a particular individual? Should the legal system recognize or respond to these valuations? And if so, how?It has recently been shown that pet-animal is treated like pet owner' family with affection. People really love their pets, invest sizable emotional and financial sums in caring for them, and want to do everything they can to reduce the chance that such beloved companions will endure unnecessary harm. Although our Code of Civil Law does not have like German Code of Civil Law §90(a), we don't have to treat legally pet animal as things classified as mere property. Japanese courts actually are moving closer to consensus on the pet animal valuation. It may increase claim for the malpractice liability of veterinarians in our country. When matters veterinarian negligece, courts shoud consider various factors on a case-by-case basis, for example, different kind, purpose, relations of animal and so on. In the veterinary malpractice litigation, courts have to decide like human doctor's malpratice. And courts are necessary to consider the emotional impact of pet loss. It's not justifiable still limit pet owners to recovering only market value damages for the negligent or intentional deaths of their pet animals. If civil courts allows not more than market value damages in cases of veterinary malfeasance, human victims of veterinary negligence are not fully compensated for the emotional and financial investments made in their pet animals. It's the problem of equity. And the inability to recover more than nominal damages financially precludes owners actually harmed by veterinary malpractice from even seeking civil redress in the courts. This preclusion in turn prevents any meaningful judicial oversight to ensure that veterinarians are adequately conforming to the level of care expected by pet owners and the rest of our society. It's the problem of fairness. Accordingly, courts positively must allow consolation money about pet owner's emotional damage.
참고문헌 (23)
- 김병일, "의료계약법률" (2006), 한국학술정보
- 왕상한, "의료법원론" (2008), 법문사
- 김선중, "의료과오소송법" (2008), 박영사
- 신현호, "의료소송총론" (1997), 육법사
- 김수진, "동물보호법개정논의에 즈음한 비교법적 고찰", 행정법연구, 15, pp.299~317 (2006), 행정법이론실무학회(行政法理論實務學會)
- 박정기, "동물의 법적 지위에 관한 연구", 법학연구, 51(3), pp.25~53 (2010), 법학연구소
- 양재모, "人, 物의 二元的 權利體系의 變化 -동물의 물건성과 인격성-", 한양법학, (26), pp.289~303 (2009), 한양법학회
- 이재열, "응급환자 전원에 관한 판례의 태도 - 대법원 2005. 6. 24. 선고 2005다16713 판결", 의료법학, 10(1), pp.389~420 (2009), 대한의료법학회
- 이유봉, "인간의 법을 통해서 바라 본 동물의 죽음에 관한 소고", 서울대 법학, 50(1) (2009)
- 전광백, "의료과오와 주의의무", 비교사법, 12(3), pp.187~224 (2005), 한국비교사법학회
- 최재천, "의료과실과 의료소송" (2001), 육법사
- 황정근, "불법행위로 인한 재산권 침해에 대한 위자료청구", 민사판례연구, 16 (1994)
- 新美育文, "各國の ペット法事情", 法律時報, 73(4)
- 長谷川貞之, "日本における獸醫療過誤訴訟と獸醫師の民事責任", 自由と正義, pp.52~63 (2009), 日本弁護士連合會
- 淺野明子, "獸醫料過誤事件 : "獸醫師にとる詐欺事件を受任して"", 自由と正義, 60(12), pp.64~69 (2009), 日本弁護士連合會
- 浦川道太郞, "ペットに對する醫療事故と獸醫師の責任", 判例タイムズ, (1234), pp.55~60 (2007), 判例タイムズ社
- 渋谷 寬, "ペットを取り卷く法律問題", 自由と正義, 60(12) (2009)
- H. King, Jr., "The Standard of Care for Veterinarians in Medical Malpractice Claims", TENN. L. Rev, 58(1) (1990)
- Prosser, Wade, "Cases and Materials, ninth edition" (1994), Westbury, New York The Foundation Press, Inc
- Marcia Mobilia Boumil, "The Law of Medical Liability" (1995), West Publishing Co
- "Vincenzo Roppo, ISTITUZIONI DI DIRITTO PRIVATO, Monduzzi Editore, sesta ed", ~ (2008)
- "정보마당", 소비자원[URL]
- "개정동물애호법의 해설", 총리부내각총리대신관방관리실[URL]
