Prodliab.PDF

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Prodliab.PDF"

병기 황
4 years ago
Views:

1 1.. (produ ct s liability ) , EU E C (EC Directiv e 85/ 374/ EEC) ( : Con sum er Protection A ct 1987) (A g ent Orang e), (Ahearn v. F ibreb oard Corp., E.D.T ex ) 1,535 (Global Settlem ent A greem ent )..,. 2. (tort s ).., (Greenm an v. Yub a Pow er Products, 59 Cal.2d 57 (Cal. 1963)). (strict liability )

2 .. (negligen ce). (Lan gridg e v. Levy, 2 M eeson & W elsby 519 (1837)). (immin ently dang erou s ). 10 (T homa s & W ife v. W in chester, 6 N.Y. 397 (1852)).. ( priv ity ).. (W interbottom v. W right, 10 M eeson & W elsby 109 (1842)).. (inherently dang erou s ) 1916 (M acph er son v. Buick M otor Co., 217 N.Y. 382, 111 N.E (N.Y. 1916))., (reason ably certain ) (H enning sen v. Bloomfield M otor s, 32 N.J. 358, 161 A.2d 69 (N.J. 1960)). (express w arranty ), (implied w arranty ),..,

3 , ,.,. 3. (n eglig en ce), (breach of w arranty ), (strict liability in tort )., (econ omic los s ).. (1)., (reasonable per son ) (duty of care).... (2). ( ) (reason to kn ow ) (, ). (3)

4 , (E scola v. Coca Cola Bottling Co. of Fresn o, 24 Cal.2d 453, 150 P.2d 436 (Cal. 1944)). R es ip sa loquitur ( )... (1), (express w arranty ). (UCC) (Art.2 Sales ) (merchantable) (implied w arranty ) ( 2-314). ( 2-315). (m erch ant ) ( (1))..,. (n egligen ce). (2). (UCC 2-318). A : B : C : (B ). (con sum er g oods ) (Cal.Civ.Code 1790). (3) (UCC 2-316),, (disclaimer )

5 . (uncon scionable) (UCC 2-719(3)). (4)... (statute of limitation s ). (discov ery rule)... [ 2 ] 402 A. (1),, (physical harm ). (a), (b) (2). (a), (b),,.,. 4.. (produ ct s ), ( [ 2 ] 402)., - 5 -

6 .. ( ). A IDS ( : (5) )., (unav oidably un safe produ ct )... (1) (unreason ably dan gerou s ), (defectiv e). (patent ). (2) (misu se) (3) (M ountain v. Procter & Gamble, 312 F.Supp. 534 (E.D.W is. 1970)) (1) (m anufacturin g defect s ). ( - 6 -

7 ). (2) (design defect s ) ( ) (Grim shaw v. F ord M otor Co., 119 Cal.Appl. 3d 757 (Cal.Appl. 4 Dist. 1981)) 72. ( ) (crashw orthiness ). (enhan ced injury ).., (lap belt ) (Gardn er v. H on da M otor Co., 145 A.D.2d 41, 536 N.Y.S.2d 303 (1988)) (pre- empt ),., ,. ( ) (con sum er ex pectation ) - (risk - utility ). (n orm al u se).. (feasible alternativ e analy sis )

8 . ( fact finder ). (Barker v. Lull Engin eering Co., 143 Cal.Rptr. 225, 573 P.2d 443 (Cal. 1978)). (1), (2). ( ) (state of the art ) (3) (inadequate w arnin g s ),... (M ccorm ack v. Hank scraft, 278 Minn. 322, 154 N.W.2d 488 (1967))... (Canifax v. H ercules Pow der, 237 Cal.Appl.2d 44 (1965)).., (learned interm ediary ) (John son v. Am erican Cy anamid, 239 Kan, 279, 718 P.2d 1318 (Kan. 1986)).. (1)., - 8 -

9 (circum stantial evidence). (cau sation ). (actual cau se).. (2) (dam age) (, ) (per son al injury ), (w rongful death ). (econ omic loss ). (3) (proxim ate cau se). (F ord M otor v. W agoner, 192 S.W.2d 840 (T enn. 1946)).. (W hitehead v. Dy cho, 775 S.W.2d 593 (T enn. 1989)) , (by stander ). 3 (Elm ore v. Am erican M otor s, 70 Cal.2d 578, 451 P.2d 84 (Cal. 1969)). (rescuer ).,.. (all participant s in th e m arketin g ).,,, ( ) (lessor ). ( a s is ) - 9 -

10 .,,., (franchisee),...., (contributory negligence). (comparativ e n eglig en ce; ). (as sumption of risk ), ,, -,. 70., (rhetoric). (FDA ).. 1 (M acdon ald v. Orth o Pharm aceutical Corp., 394 M as s. 131, 475 N.E.2d 65, cert.denied, 794 US 920 (1985)).,,

11 . DES 200. (indu stry - w ide liability ) 90% (Sin dell v. Abbott Laboratories, 26 Cal.3d 588, 607 P.2d 924, 163 Cal.Rptr. 132, cert.denied, 449 US 912 (1980)) (punitiv e dam ag e) (settlem ent ). ( 8) ( 14). (IUD ) 1985 (Palm er v. A.H. Robin s Co., 684 P.2d 187 (Colo. 1984)). (social in suran ce). (blood bath ) ( (hidden tort tax ) ).. (33 ), (27 ), (8 ) ,,,,,,.. (Quiet Revolution) , (

12 2,526 ) (State F arm v. Chry sler, 37 Ohio St.3d 1, 523 N.E.2d 489 (1988)) ,,. (unav oidably un safe). ( ) (Brock v. M errell Dow Ph armaceuticals, 874 F.2d 307, 884 F.2d 166 (5th Cir. 1989) , 44. (vicariou s successor liability ) DE S (m arket - w ide liability ).. (H ardy v. Chem etron, 870 F.2d 1007 (5th Cir. 1989)). (inh erently dang erou s ),,,, (ultra h azardou s ),.,.,

13 . (Chau sse v. Alcan In got & Pow der s, Prod.Liab.Rep.(CCH ) P 11,898 (D.M a ss. 1988)).. (inform ation cost ) (Cotton v. Bu ckey e Gas, 840 F.2d 935 (D.C.Cir. 1988)).,... (Ju zw in v. Amtorg T radin g, 705 F.Supp (D.N.J. 1989), v acated, 718 F.Supp (D.N.J. 1989)).. CCH ( ) ,526, 14% W estlaw ,,,,, ( ) 51.2% % % %. ( ) 6.9% 12.8%.. (breakthrough) %, 2.5%, %, 7.9%. (have- not victims) (haves ). (diversity jurisdiction) ( ) % %

14 , ,.., , ( ) ,, DES ( ) ,. 15..,

15 ,.....,. 51 ( DC ). (in stru ction ),,. (ex pert w itnes s ) , 50%, 25%, 5%, 20%., (PL ) OE CD... :,,, 1995,

歯음란물규제관할권(홍성필).PDF

歯음란물규제관할권(홍성필).PDF ( ) I. I I. I I I. I,. 1) :, ;, ;. 2),,..kr,.com 1) David R. Johnson & David G. Post, law and Borders- T he Rise of law in Cyberspace, retrievable from http:// ww w.cli.org/ X0025- LBFIN,html, at 3. 2)