J Korean Med Sci.  2015 Dec;30(12):1718-1722. 10.3346/jkms.2015.30.12.1718.

The Legal Doctrine on 'Limitation of Liability' in the Precedent Analysis on Plastic Surgery Medical Malpractice Lawsuits

• Park BY
• Pak JH
• Hong SE
• Kang SR

• KMID: 2359954
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2015.30.12.1718

Abstract

This study intended to review the precedents on plastic surgery medical malpractice lawsuits in lower-court trials, classify the reasons of 'limitation of liability' by type, and suggest a standard in the acknowledgement of limitation of liability ratio. The 30 lower-court's rulings on the cases bearing the medical negligence of the defendants acknowledged the liability ratio of the defendants between 30% and 100%. Ten cases ruled that the defendants were wholly responsible for the negligence or malpractice, while 20 cases acknowledged the limitation of liability principle. In the determination of damage compensation amount, the court considered the cause of the victim side, which contributed in the occurrence of the damage. The court also believed that it is against the idea of fairness to have the assailant pay the whole compensation, even there is no victim-side cause such as previous illness or physical constitution of the patient, and applies the legal doctrine on limitation of liability, which is an independent damage compensation adjustment system. Most of the rulings also limited the ratio of responsibility to certain extent. When considering that the legal doctrine on limitation of liability which supports concrete validity for the fair sharing of damage, the tangible classification of causes of limitation of liability suggested in this study would be a useful tool in forecasting the ruling of a plastic surgery medical malpractice lawsuit.

Keyword

Plastic Surgery; Malpractice; Lawsuits; Liability

MeSH Terms

Humans
*Liability, Legal
Malpractice/*legislation & jurisprudence
Reconstructive Surgical Procedures/adverse effects/legislation & jurisprudence
Republic of Korea
Surgery, Plastic/*adverse effects/*legislation & jurisprudence

Figure

• 

  Fig. 1 The ratio of limitation of liability and number of judicial precedents. The ratio of the limitation of liability means full liability of a medical staff member.

Reference

1. Kim SY, Lee MJ. Investigation of costs in medical accidents to improve the relative value of risks. Seoul: Yonsei University;2012.

2. Baek KH. Corporation liability in the treatment of patients and medical malpractice of plastic surgeons. Korean Soc Law Med. 2012; 13:91–123.

3. Lee KK, Kim CS. A study for typing limitations of liability. Seoul: Sungkyunkwan University;2013. Dissertation.

4. Park YH. Proving malpractice and causal relationship in medical malpractice lawsuits and its methods: historical analysis of the Supreme Court 1995.2.10 sentence 93Da52402 decision. Justice. 2004; 77:90–123.

5. Park DJ. Calculation of damage claim amounts. Korean J Civil Law. 2007; 36:541.

6. Korea Ministry of Government Legislation. The Civil Law section 369. accessed on 5 June 2015. Available at http://www.law.go.kr/lsInfoP.do?lsiSeq=160862&efYd=20151016#0000.

7. Kim MJ. The principle of law on comparative negligence expanded from medical malpractice liability. Northeast Asian Law J. 2012; 5:159–190.

8. Kim CD. Principles of limitation of liability within the ranges of damage compensations: in relation to the Supreme Court 2007.10.25. sentence 2006 Da 16758 decision. Collection of Treatises of Law. Seoul: Hanyang University;2010. 27:p. 33.

9. Lee EY. The meaning of limitation of liability in judicial precedents and its justification. Collection of Treatises of Law. Seoul: Dankook University;2012. 36:p. 572.

10. Kwon YJ. An ideological foundation of the illegal act and its implications-centered by the paradigm of prevention and recovery. Justice. 2009; 109.

11. Uijeongbu district court. 2009.4.23 sentence 2008 Ga Dan 15912 decision. accessed on 5 June 2015. Available at http://uijeongbu.scourt.go.kr/main/new/Main.work.

12. Park JY. The principles of law on limitation of liability of judicial precedents in OB/GYN medical malpractice lawsuits-centered by the analysis of precedents in lower-court trials. Seoul Law J. 2014; 55:478–510.