製造物責任紛爭을 위한 ADR(재판외 분쟁처리)제도의 활성화 방안
A Study on the Activation of ADR(Alternative Dispute Resolution) System for the Product Liability Dispute
0
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Strict products liability is liability in tort for harm caused by defective products without any necessity for the plaintff to show fault on the part of the defendant. The American Greenmann v. Yuba Power case is of major importance in the development of Srict Liability doctrine for the defective product. After this case, most American jurisdictions have adopted the verson of strict tort liability contained in section 402A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts which was first drawn up by the American Law Institute in 1965. Propsals for a European Community Diretive on Products liability were first considered in the 1970s and after slow progress, finally led to the adoption by the Member States of the present Directive in 1985. The Directive provides in its first article that 'producer shall be liable for damage caused by a defect in his product'. This Directive was the first significant attempt to achieve the harmonisation of an area of private law at Community level. Now, All Member States of EU have adopted legislation incorporating the Directive into their national legal systems. Jananese Product Liability Act 1994 and Korean Product Liability Act 1999 have adoped the strict liability doctrine as well as EC Directive 85/374 and the American Restatement of Tort 1965. For the resolution of products liability cases, many countries use ADR system. Especially with the introduction of strict liability, many dispute resolution centers in the field of product liability have been set up and begun opertions in Japan. ADＲ has the potential of being guick and less expensive in the procedural phase. ADR is easily accessible to the parties and removes various impediments in access to legal remidies. In Japan, there are two types of ADR organizations for Products Liability. One is that of the national Consumer Center and local Consumer Centers, which deal with product complaints, the other is that of the Product Liability Centers that take care of extended damages and harm caused by defective products. Many Producers tend to think that such compromise is not un reasonable for maintaining their reputation and goodwill, partly because the monetary amount in dispute with consumers is often very small. PL centers can be appreciated as an attempt to build a structure that enables the fair resolution of disputes, based on law and facts, by providing a new and scientifically natural service for investigating the cause. Finally, in this paper I would like to introduce a new ADR system focusing on the Japanese organizations for the products liability disputes(PL centers and Cause Investigating Organizations).
Abstract
Strict products liability is liability in tort for harm caused by defective products without any necessity for the plaintff to show fault on the part of the defendant. The American Greenmann v. Yuba Power case is of major importance in the development of Srict Liability doctrine for the defective product. After this case, most American jurisdictions have adopted the verson of strict tort liability contained in section 402A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts which was first drawn up by the American Law Institute in 1965. Propsals for a European Community Diretive on Products liability were first considered in the 1970s and after slow progress, finally led to the adoption by the Member States of the present Directive in 1985. The Directive provides in its first article that 'producer shall be liable for damage caused by a defect in his product'. This Directive was the first significant attempt to achieve the harmonisation of an area of private law at Community level. Now, All Member States of EU have adopted legislation incorporating the Directive into their national legal systems. Jananese Product Liability Act 1994 and Korean Product Liability Act 1999 have adoped the strict liability doctrine as well as EC Directive 85/374 and the American Restatement of Tort 1965. For the resolution of products liability cases, many countries use ADR system. Especially with the introduction of strict liability, many dispute resolution centers in the field of product liability have been set up and begun opertions in Japan. ADＲ has the potential of being guick and less expensive in the procedural phase. ADR is easily accessible to the parties and removes various impediments in access to legal remidies. In Japan, there are two types of ADR organizations for Products Liability. One is that of the national Consumer Center and local Consumer Centers, which deal with product complaints, the other is that of the Product Liability Centers that take care of extended damages and harm caused by defective products. Many Producers tend to think that such compromise is not un reasonable for maintaining their reputation and goodwill, partly because the monetary amount in dispute with consumers is often very small. PL centers can be appreciated as an attempt to build a structure that enables the fair resolution of disputes, based on law and facts, by providing a new and scientifically natural service for investigating the cause. Finally, in this paper I would like to introduce a new ADR system focusing on the Japanese organizations for the products liability disputes(PL centers and Cause Investigating Organizations).
참고문헌 (56)
- 鄭萬朝, "過失에 기한 製造物責任과 그 證明問題", 민사판례연구, 1 (1992)
- 鄭萬朝, "製造物責任", 司法論集 (1978), 법원행정처
- 鄭忠見, "生産物責任에 있어서 缺陷의 槪念과 類型", 比較私法, 3(1) (1996)
- 최명구, "제조물책임에서의 자동차의 결함", 比較私法, 6(1) (1999)
- 최병규, "제조물책임보험의 현황과 활성화방안 연구", 比較私法, 6(1) (1999), 한국비교사법학회
- 崔秉祿, "製造物責任訴訟에서의 立證責任", 比較私法比較私法, 6(1) (1999), 한국비교사법학회
- 崔秉祿, "제조물책임법의 입법방향", 월간 消費者, (170) (1995)
- 崔秉祿, "製造物責任의 法理와 立法方向에 관한 硏究", 박사, pp.1994
- 崔完植, "法院判例를 통하여 본 美國의 航空機製造者責任", 국제법학회논총, 35(2) (1990)
- 崔完植, "航空機製造物責任에 관한 考察: 美國의 航空判例를 중심으로", 航空法學會誌, (3) (1991)
- 한봉희, "韓國製造物責任法의 立法論的課題", 財産法硏究, 12(1) (1999)
- Grubb, Andrew, "The Law of Product Liability, Butterworths CommonLaw Series" (2000), Butterworths
- Henderson, "Products Liability- Problems and Process, 3rded" (1997), Aspen Law & Business-A Division of Aspen Publishers,Inc.
- Kojima, Takeshi, "Perspective on Civil Justice and ADR: Japan andthe USA, Series of the Institute of Comparative Law in Japan 18,The Institute of Comparative Law in Japan" (1990), Chuo UniversityPress
- Kojima, Takeshi, "Civil Procedure and ADR in Japan, Series of theInstitute of Comparative Law in Japan 65, The Institute ofComparative Law in Japan" (2004), Chuo University Press
- Koziol, Helmut, "European Tort Law 2002" (2003), Springer Verlag
- Koch, B.A., "Unification of Tort Law: Strict Liability,Principles of European Tort Law Vol. 6" (2002), Kluwer Law International
- Lukes, "Reform der Produkthaftung, K?n", M?chen, 1979
- Markesinis, B.S., "Tort Law, 4th ed" (1999), ClarendonPress
- Owen, David G., "Products liability and Safety, University CasebookSeries" (1999), The Foundation Press, Inc.,
- Shapo, "The Law of Products Liability, vol. 1, 2" (1987), Butterworth LegalPublishers
- Wandt, "Internationale Produkthaftung" (1995), Heidelberg:Verlag Recht undWirtschaft
- Kee-Young Yeun, "von der Verschadenshaftung zur Gef?rdungshaftungf? fehlerhafte Produkte(G?tingen RechtswissenschaftlicheeStudien Bd.132, Verlag Otto Schwartz & Co.). G?tingen", ~ (1988)
- Korpela, Allan E., "Failure to Wam as Basis of Liability under Doctrineof Strict Liability in Tort, 55 ALR(3rd)", ~
- Owen, David G., "The Moral Foundation of Product Liability Law:Toward First Principles, 68 NOTRE DAME L. Rev. (1993).David G. Owen, "Products Liability Law in The United States,"lnt'lSymposium, 'Joint Comparative Study on Consumer Protectionand The Law,' Waseda University in Japan (1993. 4. 12-,-13)", ~ (1993)
- "Congress, Commqn Sense Product Liability Reform Act(product liability, law revision), 1995. 3. 1, Congressional Session 104-1; Passed byCongress, March 9, 1995.Restatement (Third) of Torts, Product Safety and LiabilityReporter, March 24, 1995: May 26, 1995; February 2, 1996(Vols. 24, No. 5)and May 24, 1996 (Vols. 24, No. 21)", ~ (1996)
- "Product Liability Bill (S 565); As Passed by The Senate May 10, 1995,Product Safety and Liability Reporter, May 12, 1995. Common Sense Product Liability Legal Reform Act of 1996,l04th Congress 2d Session, House of Representatives Report 104-481,March 14, 1996.The American Law Institute, Restatement of The Law Torts (Third):Products Liability, Tentative Draft No. 1(1994), No. 2(March 13", ~ (1994)
- Dassin, L., "Design Defects in the Rules Enabling Act: The Misapplication of Federal Rule of Evidence 407 to Strict Liability", NY U. L. Rev, 65, pp.3~ (1990)
- Herzog, Peter E., "Receht Developments in Products Liability in the United States", 38, pp.3~ (1990)
- Herzog, Peter E., "Recent Developments in Products Liability: An EmpiricalStudy Change", UCLA L. Rev, 37 (1990)
- Henderson, "Closing the American Products Liability Frontier: The Rejection of Liability Without Defect", NY U. L. Rev, 66 (1991)
- Henderson, "Stargazing; The Future of American Products Liabvility Law", NY U. L. Rev, 66 (1991)
- Powers, W. Jr., "A Modest Proposal To, Abandon Strict Products Liability", pp.3~ (1991), University of lllinois L. Rev.
- Schwartz, A., "The Case Against Strict Liability", Fordahm L.Rev, 60 (1992)
- Owen, David G., "The Fault Pit", Ga. L. Rev, 26 (1992)
- Boston, Gerald W., "Environmental Torts and Punitive Damages", J.of P. L, 14 (1992)
- Henderson, "A Proposed Revision of Section 402 A of The Restatement(Second) of Torts", Cornell L. Rev, 77 (1992)
- Reitenour, Steve, "Liability for Injuries Caused by Printed Media", J.of P. L, 14 (1992)
- Matthews, Robert A. Jr., "Neo no-fault Products Liability and the Product Design Engineer", J of P. L, 14, pp.95~ (1992)
- . Int'l L. and Com, "1986", 13
- Priest, "The Current Insurance Crisis and Modem Tort Law", YaleL.J, 96 (1987)
- Schwartz, A., "Product Safety, Product Liability: Making the Interface", John Liner Rev, 1, pp.3~ (1987)
- Schwartz, A., "Prpposals for Products Liability Refonn : A Theoretical Synthesis", Yale L. J, 97 (1988)
- Galanter, "The Bay after the Litigation Explosion", Maryland L. Rev, 46, pp.1~ (1988)
- Attanasio, John, "The Principles of Aggregate Autonomy and the Calabresian Approach to Products Liability", Va. L. Rev, 74 (1988)
- McKenna, Robert M., "The Impact of Product Liability Law on the Development of Vaccine Against the AIDS Virus", The Univ. of Chicago L. Rev, 55 (1988)
- Priest, George L., "Strict Products Liability: The Original Intent", Cardozo L. Rev, 10 (1989)
- Zekoll, "The Gennan Products Liability Act", Am. J. of Com L, 37 (1989)
- Henderson, "The Quiet Revolution in Products Liability: An Empirical Study of Legal Change", UCLA L. Rev, 37, pp.3~ (1990)
- Henderson, "Doctrinal Collapse in Products Liability: The Empty Shell of Failure To Warn", NY U. L. Rev, 65, pp.2~ (1990)
- Priest, G.L., "The Invention of Enterprise Liability: A Critical History of The Intellectual Foundations of Modem Tort Law", Legal Studies, 14 (1985)
- Priest, G.L., "Part 1: Private Law-Tarts I Praducts Liability", Sw. L. Rev, 34 (1980)
- Henderson, James A., "Extending the Baundaries of Strict Products Liability: Implicatian of the Theory of the Second Best", U. of Penn. L. Rev, 128 (1980)
- Buchanan, Charlatte S., "Praduct Liability Defences under the Madel Unifann Praduct Liability Act and State Legislatian", X V Forum, pp.3~ (1980)
- O'Cannell, Jeffrey, "Transferring injured victims' Right t0 No-Fault insurers: New 'Social Remedy' Approaches to Cure Liability Insurance Ills", The Univ. of Illinois L. Forum (1981)
- Owen, D.G., "Problems in Assessing Punitive Damages Against Manufacturers of Defective Products", Univ. of Chicaga L. Rev, 49 (1982)