제조물책임과 사후구제조치 증거

The manufacturers who make products by the negligence or who make the products on the chain of sale with defects would have product liability to the injuries of plaintiff. The manufacturers would take a subsequent remedial measures in order to make the products safe and to improve the performance of the products. However, there has been legal issues that the evidence of the subsequent remedial measures would be admissible as the evidence to prove the negligence of manufacturers or the product's defects. Almost all Canadian courts have reached the decision that the subsequent remedial measures would be admissible in the discovery based on the notion that these have relevance with the issued matter. However the Canadian courts have had different decisions state by state on the admissibility of the subsequent remedial measures which introduced in the trial. In the United States, on the early stage of the product liability the courts had different decisions on this matter. However this issue was resolved by the enactment of the Federal Rule of Evidence § 407 which clearly describes that the evidence of subsequent remedial measures is not admissible to prove negligence, culpable conduct, a defect in a product, a defect in a product's design, or a need for warning or instruction. But the Rule also describes that the subsequent remedial measures shall be admissible to prove ownership, control, or feasibility of precautionary measure, if controverted, or impeachment. Although the Rule was introduced, there have been so many cases, court decisions and academic articles related to the issue. After severe controversies and discussions, the Product Liability Act of Korea was enacted at 2002. In Korea the legal issues on product liability have usually focused on the requirements of the product liability, manufacturing defects, design defects and causation. There have been no court decisions and academic articles related to the product liability and subsequent remedial measures as evidence. Under the Korean legal system, there is no jury to decide the relevance of evidence. However, with the Principle of Free Evaluation of Evidence, the probative value of the evidence shall be left to the discretion of the judge. Therefore the subsequent remedial measures would be admissible to prove negligence, culpable conduct, a defect in a product, a defect in a product's design, or a need for warning or instruction. Now it is the high time to review on the issues related to subsequent remedial measures under the Korean legal system. In addition, the cases, court decisions and academic articles related to the subsequent remedial measures in Canada and United States would be great helpful to review the legal issues on Product Liability Act in Korea.