製造物 責任에 관한 硏究

Abstract

製造物責任은 商品을 大量生産·販賣하는 現代社會에서 消費者를 保護하는 理論으로서 매우 重要한 位置를 차지하고 있다. 즉 商品에 缺陷이나 瑕疵가 있음으로 해서 消費者가 被害를 받은 경우, 消費者는 直接的인 契約關係를 맺지 않은 製造者에게 直接 損害賠償을 請求할 수 있는 것이다. 製造物의 種類는 날이 갈수록 많아지고 있는데, 本 論文은 특히 藥品을 中心으로 다루었다. 藥品에 缺陷이 있어서 使用者가 받은 被害를 究明해 보려는 것이다. 藥品에 製造上의 缺陷이 있어서 생긴 被害는 基本的으로 製造物責任의 問題이지만, 多數人에게 繼續的으로 被害를 줄 경우에는 公害的인 性格을 갖게 된다. 藥品에 의한 被害는 또한 人體內에 대한 것이므로 因果關係立證에 대해서 被害者는 좀 더 무거운 負擔을 지게 된다. 本 論文은 製造物責任에 대한 一般理論을 살피면서, 특히 藥品에 의한 被害의 위와 같은 特性을 살펴 보았다. Ⅰ, Ⅱ에서는 序論과 製造物責任의 一般理論을 살펴 보고, Ⅲ에서는 藥害의 性格과 因果關係立證, 損害賠償의 面을 살펴 보았다.;We will define here product liability as anything that describes burden of danger to the things s defect made by producer. Mass production and mass selling and mass consumption of goods are the typical character in modern industrial society. Under these circumstances, product liability theory is very interesting and it is also contributed in the dimension of consumer protect ion. However since the introduction of product liability theety there has been a far greater emphasis on the constitution of legal principles. Today the kind of products are numerous and futhermore it will be differentiated and developed, and producer will be specialized. Considering this tendency, product liability need to be differentiated. The purposes in this thesis are as following. ⅰ) seeks to seize the general theory of product liability. ⅱ) explores if medicines, a specific products, may be success or failure to theory formation. ⅲ) examines the remedy of sufferer. In this examination I lay stress upon the difficulties of causation proof between cause made by the result that medicines directly influence the human body and damage occurence as the infringement of personal profit. And focusing on the remedy of sufferers who are put the heavy burden of proof, I adopted muisance as the princille of subjects which reveal a few nature of public muisance, I used statistic causation theory based to a large degree on an easier method. I also studied "res ipsa loquito" (The thing speaks it-self) rule and danger zone theory based on the method of burden proof conversion. Above two rules are adopted in the case law of America and Germany. But considering our law which adopts principle of liability with fault as a general principle, it is yet unreasonable to adopt above two rules entirely. Upon this I promoted the enactment of product liability, even though it is difficult to demand the enactment of medicine product liability. And I criticized product liability bills, now presented, through the comment of Japanese product liability bills.