All
| TITLE | Supreme Court Decision 2013Da26708, 26715, 26722, 26739 Decided November 9, 2017 【Damages (Medical); Damages (Medical); Damages (Medical); Damages (Medical)】 [full Text] |
|---|---|
| Summary | |
|
[1] Whether a blood product manufacturer bears a heightened duty of care to take all necessary steps available to eliminate the risk of infection through its blood product (affirmative), and specific details of the duty Matters to be taken into account when determining whether there was violation of a duty of care Allocation of the burden of proof on whether a blood product manufacturer took steps through medical consultation, etc. to prevent blood supply from anyone at high risk of infection of Hepatitis C Virus [2] Requirements for recognizing tort liability of a manufacturer, etc. for a product defect in indication, and standard of determining whether there is a defect [3] Standard of rating labor disability [4] In cases where a virally infected patient alleges against a pharmaceutical company as a ground for damage liability that he/she was infected through a virally tainted blood product, degree of the burden of proof to presume causation between the defect in the blood product or the negligence of the pharmaceutical company and the victim’s infection, and standard of determining whether it is reasonably likely that the blood product was virally tainted Whether the presumption of causation is rebutted simply on the ground that the victim was administered a blood product manufactured by another company, or received blood transfusion during the period when infection is presumed (negative) Whether this doctrine holds true even if the other blood product administered to the victim during the period when infection is presumed is more likely to have been virally tainted, or if the other blood product was administered to the victim for a longer period (affirmative) [5] In cases where an infection has a long incubation period or where, at the time of infection, it is difficult to predict to what stage a disease would advance, meaning of “the time when the unlawful act was committed,” which is the base point from which to calculate the extinctive prescription period on tort damage claim [6] Limitations to the discretion of a fact-finding court in computing the amount of solatium for noneconomic tort damages |
|
