불법행위에 있어서 과실과 주의의무

The meaning of negligence in torts is defined by two factors in general; ① things that can be foreseen if we pay attention to foreseeing or do reasonable care, and ② violations of the burden of precaution to eliminate or reduce the risk of damage. However, in the case of torts in ordinary civic life, there is no real benefit to distinguish between ① and ② because reasonable person avoids damage by not taking or withholding the risk. The next question is whether a reasonable man should have taken precautions against the risk; if a reasonable man has taken particular steps to meet the standard of care, breach of duty of negligence will not be established(Here, in addition to ①, ② becomes important in judging whether there is negligence). Different standards of care apply in different situations. In the greater risk than normal, a breach of duty of care can easily be established without asking foreseeability since the pattern of actions to prevent damage is standardized. On the other hand, even if it is an abstract form of negligence that serves as a standard for the establishment of tort, it is necessary to examine the negligence according to the specific type of tort rather than judging it overly generally or abstractly. For example, in the case of a minor with responsibility, it may be a question of whether the same level of attention as that of a normal adult is required or whether it can be reduced according to age or ability. The degree of attention of minors should be considered rather than the standardized of responsibility. In addition, since the degree of care can be evaluated differently depending on the magnitude of the risk arising from specific actions or the severity of the infringed benefit. If there is a high risk of direct damage, it should be considered that a heavier duty of care is required, such as medical treatment, food and drug manufacturing and sales, transportation business, etc.