[1] Requirements for establishing product liability

[2] Distribution of the burden of proof of product liability

[3] Criteria to determine whether there is a design defect due to non-employment of alternative design in a vehicle's sudden acceleration accident with automatic transmission devices

[4] The elements for establishing product liability due to a defect in the indication (Direction and warning), and the criteria for determining whether the defect is a defect

[1] A manufacturer who manufactures and sells a product is liable to manufacture and sell the product with safety and durability within the expected range in light of the level of technology and economic feasibility at the time of its distribution, in terms of its structure, quality, performance, etc., and the consumer is liable to compensate for damages caused by defects in safety and durability.

[2] In a case where a manufacturer is liable for damages on the ground of a defect in a large-scale manufactured product with high technology integrated, the manufacturing process of the product can only be seen by a manufacturer who is an expert, so it is difficult for the consumer to prove scientific and technical causation between the defect in the product and the occurrence of the defect in the product, and it is extremely difficult for the consumer to prove the causal relationship between the defect in the product and the occurrence of the damage as a general public. If the accident occurred under normal use of the product, the consumer proves that the accident occurred in the area under the exclusive control of the manufacturer, and that the accident does not occur normally without any negligence, unless the manufacturer proves that the accident occurred due to another cause, other than the defect in the product, the manufacturer's burden of proof can be mitigated so that the accident can be presumed to exist in the product and caused by the defect, and that the accident is caused by the defect is more than the guiding principle that the damage is fair and reasonable.

[3] Even if a sudden acceleration accident occurred due to the driver's improper operation of the accelerator, if the manufacturer failed to adopt a reasonable alternative design so that the product could prevent the sudden acceleration accident or reduce the risk thereof, the product's design defect can be acknowledged. However, the determination of such defect should be made in light of social norms by comprehensively taking into account such factors as the product's characteristics and use, users' expectation of the product, anticipated risks, users' awareness of the risks, possibility of avoiding risks by the user, possibility of risk by the user, possibility of the alternative design and the economic cost, relative advantages of the adopted design and the alternative design.

[4] Product liability can be recognized due to a product defect if the manufacturer did not provide reasonable explanation, instruction, warning, or any other indication but could have reduced or avoided the risk of damage or risk caused by the product. However, in determining whether such a defect exists, the product shall be determined 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 subparag. 2 and Article 3 of the Product Liability Act, Article 750 of the Civil Act / [2] Article 2 subparag. 2 and Article 3 of the Product Liability Act, Article 750 of the Civil Act, Article 288 of the Civil Procedure Act / [3] Article 2 subparag. 2 and 3 of the Product Liability Act, Article 750 of the Civil Act / [4] Article 2 subparag. 2 and Article 3 of the Product Liability Act, Article 750 of the Civil Act

[1] [2] Supreme Court Decision 98Da15934 delivered on February 25, 2000 (Gong2000Sang, 785) / [1] Supreme Court Decision 75Da2092 delivered on January 25, 197 (Gong197, 989) Supreme Court Decision 92Da18139 delivered on November 24, 1992 (Gong1993Sang, 224) / [3/4] Supreme Court Decision 2002Da1733 delivered on September 5, 2003 (Gong203Ha, 2012)

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

Defendant of the Nonparty’s administrator, the Nonparty’s taking-off of the liquidation automobile corporation, the taking-off of the lawsuit, who is the liquidation automobile corporation

Seoul High Court Decision 2002Na12248 delivered on February 13, 2003

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

1. As to the assertion of defects in the manufacture or design of a motor vehicle

The court below accepted the part of the judgment of the court of first instance. The plaintiff, a parking manager belonging to the Seog Construction Industry, was at around 18:00 on February 3, 1997, when he was in charge of moving a Kadicar car owned by the Geum River Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "the vehicle in this case"), which was on the parking lot annexed to the above building, operated the starting of the vehicle and moved the selection engine of the automatic transmission engine to the front line from parking. The above vehicle in this case, while driving the vehicle in this case, was in front of the vehicle in this case, was cut down and continued to move the vehicle in this case, and the vehicle in this case was stopped due to the shock of other vehicles parked in the above vehicle in this place and the wall walls of the restaurant, and the vehicle in this case was partially damaged before the accident, and there was no error in the automatic transmission engine, the automatic transmission machine, or brate or any accident causing an sudden accident, and found that the above vehicle in this case was not found in the company reorganization procedure 190.

The lower court determined that the Plaintiff’s assertion that there was a defect in the manufacture and design of the instant vehicle without adding devices installed in inappropriate location to prevent electromagnetic wave interference in the manufacture of the instant vehicle and that the rapid acceleration accident caused by electromagnetic wave interference at the time of the accident, and that the Plaintiff’s rapid acceleration accident caused by the rapid acceleration of the engine control devices at the time of the accident, unlike the driver’s intent, the case held that, in light of the evidence as indicated, the Plaintiff’s inspection of the rapid acceleration of the engine into the 19th engine’s rapid acceleration (emergency and rapid acceleration), the replacement of the engine up to 400 parts of the instant vehicle was maintained, and the 2nd engine’s shut down was completely opened, and the movement of the engine is not proper, and that the 9nd engine’s rapid acceleration accident caused by the defect in the 1st engine system in Japan, and that it is difficult for the Plaintiff to undergo an inspection into the 9th engine’s rapid acceleration accident without any influence on the driver’s rapid acceleration of the vehicle.

Furthermore, the court below held that the plaintiff's assertion that a sudden acceleration accident has to be presumed to have occurred due to the defect that occurred in the process of manufacturing and designing the automobile of this case, since it was confirmed that a sudden acceleration accident occurred due to the plaintiff's improper operation of the automobile of this case, it cannot be deemed that the accident occurred in the area under the manufacturer's exclusive control even though the plaintiff used the automobile of this case normally at the time of the accident, and it cannot be presumed that the sudden acceleration accident occurred due to the defect of the automobile of this case, since the plaintiff could not be presumed that the sudden acceleration accident occurred due to the defect of this case.

A manufacturer of goods is liable to manufacture and sell a product with safety and durability within the expected range in light of the level of technology and economic feasibility at the time of its distribution. In the event of damages to consumers due to a defect with safety and durability, he/she shall be liable to compensate for tort (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 75Da2092, Nov. 25, 197; 92Da18139, Nov. 24, 1992). Meanwhile, where the manufacturer is liable to compensate for damages due to a defect of a product manufactured in bulk with high technology integrated, the manufacturing process of the product can only be known by a manufacturer who is an expert, and whether such defect has occurred due to such defect, it is difficult for the manufacturer to prove that the defect and the causal relationship between the defect and the damage have occurred due to such defect are not caused by a scientific and technical defect at least 20 but beyond the burden of proof in the ordinary area of the manufacturer’s damage without reasonable instruction and proof.

However, even if examined in light of the above legal principles, it cannot be found that the engine control device of this case was defective as alleged by the plaintiff, and further, it is not proved that the accident occurred in the area under the manufacturer's exclusive control while the motor vehicle of this case was normally used by the manufacturer, and thus, it cannot be presumed that the court below's rejection of the plaintiff's assertion on this part is just, and there is no error of law such as misconception of facts, incomplete hearing, violation of the Supreme Court precedents, and omission of judgment due to the violation of the rules of evidence which affected the judgment, as alleged in the ground of appeal. Meanwhile, in this case where it is confirmed that the rapid acceleration of the motor vehicle was caused by the plaintiff's improper operation, not by the engine control device but by the plaintiff's improper operation, it cannot be said that the court below erred in the misapprehension of judgment because it did not separately determine that the other defect of the plaintiff's assertion, that is, the high-performance computer was not installed, or that it failed

2. As to the assertion of a design defect due to the failure to implement a more safe alternative design

Even if the rapid acceleration accident of this case occurred due to the driver's improper operation of the accelerator, if the manufacturer failed to adopt a reasonable alternative design so that the product could prevent the sudden acceleration accident or reduce the risk thereof, the product's design defect can be acknowledged. However, whether to recognize such defect should be determined in light of social norms by comprehensively taking into account various factors such as the product's characteristics and use, users' expectation of the product, anticipated risks, users' awareness of risks, possibility of avoiding risks by users, possibility of alternative design and economic cost, relative advantages of the adopted design and alternative design (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Da17333, Sept. 5, 2003).

그런데 기록에 의하여 살펴보면, 이 사건에서 원고가 급발진사고를 방지할 수 있는 대체설계로서 주장한 쉬프트 록(Shift Lock)은 운전자가 브레이크 페달을 밟아야만 자동변속기 레버를 주차 위치에서 전(후)진 위치로 움직일 수 있도록 고안된 장치로서 쉬프트 록을 장착하더라도 모든 유형의 급발진사고에 대하여 예방효과가 있는 것이 아니고 시동을 켠 후 자동변속기의 레버를 주차 위치에서 후진 또는 전진 위치로 변속하는 단계에서 비정상적으로 액셀러레이터 페달을 밟는 경우에 한하여 이를 방지 또는 감소시키는 효과를 가질 뿐이며, 또한 설령 쉬프트 록이 장착된 차량이라고 할지라도 운전자가 자동변속기를 주차가 아닌 다른 위치에서 변속시키는 과정에서 급발진사고가 발생하는 위험성은 방지할 수 없어서 쉬프트 록의 장착으로 급발진 사고를 예방할 수 있는 효과가 크다고 보기 어렵고 그 정도를 가늠하기도 어려운 점, 운전자가 자동변속기 자동차의 기본적인 안전운전 요령만 숙지하여 실행하면 굳이 쉬프트 록을 장착하지 않더라도 동일한 사고예방효과가 있는데 자동차는 법령에 정하여진 바에 따른 운전면허를 취득한 사람만이 운전할 수 있고 액셀러레이터 페달의 올바른 사용은 자동차 운전자로서 반드시 숙지하여야 할 기본사항인 점, 일반적으로 자동변속기 또는 액셀러레이터 페달의 오조작을 감소시키려면 쉬프트 록 이외에도 여러 가지 안전장치를 강구할 수 있는 점, 통계상 급발진사고를 일으킨 차량은 그 이전에 동종의 사고를 일으킨 적이 없으며 그 후에도 그러하기 때문에 그 차량에 대하여 급발진사고를 대비한 안전장치가 없다고 하여 그 자동차가 통상적으로 기대되는 안정성을 결하였다고 보기 어렵다는 점 등 여러 사정에 비추어 볼 때 정리회사가 이 사건 자동차에 쉬프트 록을 장착하였더라면 급발진사고를 방지하거나 그 위험성을 감소시킬 수 있었음에도 이를 장착하지 아니하여 위 자동차가 안전하지 않게 된 설계상의 결함이 있다고는 볼 수 없는 것이다.

In addition, according to the records, it is found that there is no relationship between the distance and the accident between the accelerator pedal and the hybrid as a result of the domestic and foreign investigation, and it is found that there is a risk of making it difficult to cope with emergency situations if the interval is broad. Thus, there is no design defect that can cause driver's error at the intervals of the instant vehicle.

In the same purport, the court below is just in rejecting the plaintiff's assertion that a sudden acceleration accident occurred by causing a driver's misincilation of the design defect related to the distance between the package pedal or accelerator pedal and the balcal pedal, and there is no error of misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles that affected the judgment, contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal.

3. As to the assertion of defect in indication

Product liability may be recognized due to a product defect if the manufacturer did not provide reasonable explanation, instruction, warning, or any other indication but could have reduced or avoided damage or risk likely to be caused by the product. However, in determining the existence of such a defect, the product liability shall be determined in light of social norms by comprehensively taking into account various circumstances such as the characteristics of the product, ordinary usage mode, user expectation of the product, foreseeable risks, user awareness of risks, and possibility of avoiding risks by the user (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Da17333, supra).

According to the records, the manual of the instant vehicle contains an instruction that the driver would take the balc pedal and the balc pedal in the engine operation after confirming the location of the balc pedal and the balc pedal pedal in the engine operation, and move the balc salpedal salpedal salcing and the automatic transmission salpedal salcing. Thus, it can be recognized that the instant accident could have been sufficiently prevented if the Plaintiff had followed the confirmation of the above instruction. Thus, in a motor vehicle that can be operated only by a person who has obtained a license pursuant to the laws and regulations, it cannot be said that there was a defect because the driver failed to give a warning or instruction on the vehicle in preparation for the abnormal occurrence

In the same purport, the decision of the court below that denied an instruction defect is just, and there is no error of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles that affected the judgment.

4. Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed, and all costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff who is the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Byun Jae-chul (Presiding Justice)