[1] Criteria to determine whether the product liability has a design defect

[2] Whether product liability can be recognized due to a defect in indication (e.g., instruction or warning), and the standards for determining whether there is a defect in indication

[1] Generally, a manufacturer or seller of a product shall manufacture the product with safety within the expected range in light of the current technical level and economic feasibility, etc. In light of the structure, quality, performance, etc. of the product, and shall be held liable for tort if damage to the user was caused by the defect without safety. Among these defects, the issue of whether there is a so-called design defect refers to the case where the product is not safe because the manufacturer failed to adopt a reasonable alternative design, although damage or risk would have been reduced or avoided if the manufacturer had adopted a reasonable alternative design, shall be determined in light of social norms, by comprehensively taking into account the characteristics and use of the product, the user expectation of the product, anticipated risks, users' awareness of risks, possibility of avoiding risks by the user, the possibility and economic cost of the alternative design, and the relative advantages and disadvantages of the adopted design and the alternative design.

[2] Even where the manufacturing or design defect of a product is not recognized, if a manufacturer, etc. fails to provide reasonable explanation, instruction, warning, or any other indication that would have been likely to have reduced or avoided damage or risks caused by the product, then the manufacturer, etc. may be held liable for tort against the defect in such indication. In determining whether such defect exists, the determination shall be made in light of social norms by comprehensively taking into account all the factors such as the characteristics of the product, ordinary usage mode, user expectation of the product, foreseeable risks, user awareness of the risks, and the possibility of avoiding risks by the user.

[1] Article 2 subparagraph 2 (b) and Article 3 of the Product Liability Act, Article 750 of the Civil Act / [2] Article 2 subparagraph 2 (c) and Article 3 of the Product Liability Act, Article 750 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff 1 and 10 others (Attorney Ha Jong-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Korea Air Co., Ltd. and one other (Law Firm Square, Attorneys Jeong-hwan et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2000Na60199 delivered on January 17, 2002

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the following facts based on the selected evidences of the court below: when the pilot of the instant helicopter renounced the visual flight method to the degree of 600 feet air space above the altitude 600 km where the temperature was reduced due to poor visibility, the pilot of the instant helicopter did not operate the soft to prevent the ice ice, and due to this, the crypt crypt crypt crypt crypt crypt crypt crypt crypt crypt crypt crypt crypt crypt crypt crypt crypt cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp.

In light of the records, the above fact-finding by the court below as to the circumstance of the accident is just, and there is no error in the rules of evidence or in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the allocation of burden of proof.

2. Generally, a manufacturer or seller of a product shall manufacture the product with safety within the expected range in light of the current technical level and economic feasibility, etc. in terms of its structure, quality, performance, etc., and shall be held liable for tort if damage to the user was caused by the defect without safety. Among these defects, the determination of so-called design defect refers to the case where damage or risk would have been reduced if the manufacturer would have adopted a reasonable alternative design but the product could have avoided safety due to the failure to adopt a reasonable alternative design shall be made in light of social norms, by comprehensively taking into account the characteristics and use of the product, the user expectation of the product, anticipated risks, users' awareness of the risks, the possibility of avoiding risks by the user, the possibility of avoiding risks by the alternative design and the relative advantages and disadvantages of the adopted design and the alternative design.

In light of the above legal principles and the records, as alternative design for the instant helicopter, ① stop troph operating device, ② ttop operating instruction and warning device, ③ ttop ttop ttop ttop ttop ttop t top t top t top t top ttop, ④ ttop t top t top t top t top t top t top t to minimize the operating angle in case of automatic t top t top t top t top t top t top t top t top t top t top t top t top t top t top t top t top t top t top t top t top t top t top t top t top t top t top t tor t to determine that the lower court erred in its determination of illegality.

Product liability as strict liability not premised on manufacturer’s intent or negligence was newly introduced under the Product Liability Act (Act No. 6109, Jan. 12, 2000) and applied to a product supplied after July 1, 2002 under the Addenda of the same Act, and there is no room to apply to the helicopter of this case. Therefore, the liability due to the defect determined by the court below can be deemed to be a kind of fault liability premised on manufacturer’s expectation. Thus, the court below did not render a judgment on the liability for negligence in a separate legal aspect, other than the liability due to the defect. In addition, the court below did not clearly determine whether the failure to operate the ice warning, etc. was a manufacturing defect, but even according to the record, there is no error in the judgment of the court below that affected the conclusion of the judgment.

3. Even in cases where a manufacturing or design defect is not recognized, if a manufacturer, etc. fails to take reasonable explanation, instruction, warning, or any other indication that would have been likely to have reduced or avoided damage or risks caused by the product, then the manufacturer, etc. may be held liable for tort against the defect in such indication. In determining whether such defect exists, the determination shall be made in light of social norms by comprehensively taking into account all the factors such as the product’s characteristics, ordinary usage mode, user expectation of the product, anticipated risks, foreseeable risks, user awareness of risks, and the possibility of avoiding risks by the user.

In light of the above legal principles and records, the judgment of the court below that the defect in the instruction and warning is not recognized is just, and there are no errors in the rules of evidence or in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the defect in the instruction and warning, or in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the defect in the instruction and warning, or in the omission of judgment that affected the conclusion of the judgment, since the pilot can easily know that the abnormal operation of the ice can be caused by the ice typherb's typherb's typherb's typherb's typherb's tyption in light of the characteristics of the helicopter of this case.

4. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Shin Hyun-chul (Presiding Justice)