CONTACT US: Contact info
|
Citation |
Ryu CH. Ajou Law Rev. 2017; 11(3): 36-60. |
|
Copyright |
(Copyright © 2017, Legal Research Institute of Ajou University) |
|
DOI |
|
PMID |
unavailable |
|
Abstract |
In the product liability, it is significant that the strict liability has been adopted as an exception of the negligence liability for easy compensation of consumers'damage. However, consumers have to prove the existence of defect in order to get compensation even under the strict liability system. To prove the design defect, consumers must satisfy with the criteria of defects. According to the consumer expectation test, the defect can be judged whether there is a risk that a reasonable consumer can not expect or not. However, there would be no defect if the risk of the product would be clear and consumers could recognize in advance. Therefore, the risk-utility test has become the main criterion for defect. Even though under the risk-utility test, in order to prove the defect under the risk-utility test, consumers must prove that there is a risk that exceeds the social utilities of the products and that a reasonable alternative design exists additionally. Proving defects in proportion to technological advancement is becoming increasingly difficult. It has also been criticized that the revision from the consumer expectation test to the risk-utility test in the Restatement (third) of Tort is a regression to the principle of negligence liability. In particular, in the case of inherently dangerous products or products with advanced technology, it has been increasingly difficult for consumers to get compensation by suggesting the reasonable alternative design. As the result, the product category liability theory has emerged as an alternative for the criterion for defect in the United States. In this paper, I researched the contents and the problems of product category liability through the theories and precedents in the United States, and examined the possibility of introducing it in Korea. Language: ko |