RISS 학술연구정보서비스

검색
다국어 입력

http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.

변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.

예시)
  • 中文 을 입력하시려면 zhongwen을 입력하시고 space를누르시면됩니다.
  • 北京 을 입력하시려면 beijing을 입력하시고 space를 누르시면 됩니다.
닫기
    인기검색어 순위 펼치기

    RISS 인기검색어

      KCI등재

      제조물책임법과 개발위험의 항변 = Product Liability Act and Development Risk defense

      한글로보기

      https://www.riss.kr/link?id=A76489663

      • 0

        상세조회
      • 0

        다운로드
      서지정보 열기
      • 내보내기
      • 내책장담기
      • 공유하기
      • 오류접수

      부가정보

      다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

        More than 5 years have passed since our Product Liability Act was enforced. The enactment of Product Liability Act means that the liability system based on the negligence shift to the liability system based on the defect. So many consumer supposed that there was the drastic change in the area of PL. But in reality there is little change. It"s because design defects and warning defects are primarily based on the negligence of producer. And even in the area of manufacturing defects there is little change. Before the enforcement of new act the producer was apt to be liable to the defects he made regardless of his fault or negligence. And Presumption of negligence was applied in many cases.<BR>  One of the consumer"s disappointments is the adoption of the "Development Risk" defense(the state-of-the-art defense). It"s prescribed in the § 4① ⅱ of our act. That is as follows:<BR>  Article 4 (Exemptions) ① In cases where Article 3 applies. the manufacturer. etc. shall not be liable as a result of Article 3 if he proves;<BR>  (1.)<BR>  2. that the state of scientific or technical knowledge at the time when the manufacturer, etc. delivered the product was not such as to enable the existence of the defect in the product to be discovered:<BR>  But I think that the adoption of the "Development Risk" defense is not adequate even though many industrial nations accept the state-of-the-art defense.<BR>  First of all It"s nearly impossible to find out "the state of scientific or technical knowledge at the time when the manufacturer. etc. delivered the product". Because Scientific knowability refers not to what in fact was known at the time. but to what could have been known at the time.<BR>  And the adoption of the "Development Risk" defense means that the human is the means of the development of science or technology. So "Development Risk" defense in our act must be deleted. But for the compromise of innovation and safety. this paper proposed. the compensation may be reduced when the producer observed carefully. warned the hazards and recalled them after delivering the products.<BR>  This paper ends with the phrases which were appeared in the "Beshada v. Johns-Manville Products Corp" judgement :<BR>  The concept of knowability is complicated further by the fact---that the level of investment in safety research by manufacturers is one determinant of the state-of-the-art at any given time.<BR>  By imposing on manufacturers the costs of failure to discover hazards, we create an incentive for them to invest more actively in safety research.
      번역하기

        More than 5 years have passed since our Product Liability Act was enforced. The enactment of Product Liability Act means that the liability system based on the negligence shift to the liability system based on the defect. So many consumer ...

        More than 5 years have passed since our Product Liability Act was enforced. The enactment of Product Liability Act means that the liability system based on the negligence shift to the liability system based on the defect. So many consumer supposed that there was the drastic change in the area of PL. But in reality there is little change. It"s because design defects and warning defects are primarily based on the negligence of producer. And even in the area of manufacturing defects there is little change. Before the enforcement of new act the producer was apt to be liable to the defects he made regardless of his fault or negligence. And Presumption of negligence was applied in many cases.<BR>  One of the consumer"s disappointments is the adoption of the "Development Risk" defense(the state-of-the-art defense). It"s prescribed in the § 4① ⅱ of our act. That is as follows:<BR>  Article 4 (Exemptions) ① In cases where Article 3 applies. the manufacturer. etc. shall not be liable as a result of Article 3 if he proves;<BR>  (1.)<BR>  2. that the state of scientific or technical knowledge at the time when the manufacturer, etc. delivered the product was not such as to enable the existence of the defect in the product to be discovered:<BR>  But I think that the adoption of the "Development Risk" defense is not adequate even though many industrial nations accept the state-of-the-art defense.<BR>  First of all It"s nearly impossible to find out "the state of scientific or technical knowledge at the time when the manufacturer. etc. delivered the product". Because Scientific knowability refers not to what in fact was known at the time. but to what could have been known at the time.<BR>  And the adoption of the "Development Risk" defense means that the human is the means of the development of science or technology. So "Development Risk" defense in our act must be deleted. But for the compromise of innovation and safety. this paper proposed. the compensation may be reduced when the producer observed carefully. warned the hazards and recalled them after delivering the products.<BR>  This paper ends with the phrases which were appeared in the "Beshada v. Johns-Manville Products Corp" judgement :<BR>  The concept of knowability is complicated further by the fact---that the level of investment in safety research by manufacturers is one determinant of the state-of-the-art at any given time.<BR>  By imposing on manufacturers the costs of failure to discover hazards, we create an incentive for them to invest more actively in safety research.

      더보기

      목차 (Table of Contents)

      • Ⅰ. 서설
        Ⅱ. 각국의 태도
        Ⅲ. 우리법의 규정과 문제점 및 대안
        Ⅳ. 맺음말
        [abstract]
      • Ⅰ. 서설
        Ⅱ. 각국의 태도
        Ⅲ. 우리법의 규정과 문제점 및 대안
        Ⅳ. 맺음말
        [abstract]
      더보기

      동일학술지(권/호) 다른 논문

      동일학술지 더보기

      더보기

      분석정보

      View

      상세정보조회

      0

      Usage

      원문다운로드

      0

      대출신청

      0

      복사신청

      0

      EDDS신청

      0

      동일 주제 내 활용도 TOP

      더보기

      주제

      연도별 연구동향

      연도별 활용동향

      연관논문

      연구자 네트워크맵

      공동연구자 (7)

      유사연구자 (20) 활용도상위20명

      인용정보 인용지수 설명보기

      학술지 이력

      학술지 이력
      연월일 이력구분 이력상세 등재구분
      2022 평가예정 재인증평가 신청대상 (재인증)
      2019-01-01 평가 등재학술지 선정 (계속평가) KCI등재
      2018-12-01 평가 등재후보로 하락 (계속평가) KCI등재후보
      2017-10-24 학회명변경 한글명 : 법학연구소 -> 법학연구원 KCI등재
      2015-01-01 평가 등재학술지 유지 (등재유지) KCI등재
      2011-01-01 평가 등재학술지 유지 (등재유지) KCI등재
      2009-01-01 평가 등재학술지 유지 (등재유지) KCI등재
      2008-10-10 학술지명변경 외국어명 : 미등록 -> SungKyunKwan Law Review KCI등재
      2008-05-13 학회명변경 한글명 : 비교법연구소 -> 법학연구소
      영문명 : Institute for Comparative Legal Studies -> The Institute of Legal Studies
      KCI등재
      2006-01-01 평가 등재학술지 선정 (등재후보2차) KCI등재
      2005-01-01 평가 등재후보 1차 PASS (등재후보1차) KCI등재후보
      2003-07-01 평가 등재후보학술지 선정 (신규평가) KCI등재후보
      더보기

      학술지 인용정보

      학술지 인용정보
      기준연도 WOS-KCI 통합IF(2년) KCIF(2년) KCIF(3년)
      2016 0.64 0.64 0.71
      KCIF(4년) KCIF(5년) 중심성지수(3년) 즉시성지수
      0.6 0.57 0.849 0.28
      더보기

      이 자료와 함께 이용한 RISS 자료

      나만을 위한 추천자료

      해외이동버튼