해상운송계약에서 송하인의 화물의 위험성에 관한 고지의무가 새롭게 조명되는 이유는 무엇일까? 최근 미국 법원은 Contship(2006) 사건과 In re M/V DG Harmony(2008) 사건에서, 운송인의 위험성 인식과 아울러 송하인의 고지의무 위반과 손해발생에 사이에 인과관계가 결여되는 것을 근거로 하여서만 송하인이 엄격책임에서 벗어날 수 있음을 보여주고 있다. 이는 결과적으로 종전보다 ‘인과관계 결여’라는 요건이 더 추가됨으로써 송하인의 엄격책임에 제한적인 해석을 했다는 점이다. 우리나라 상법의 경우, 운송인이 위험성을 통보받지 못하였고 송하인도 그 위험성을 몰랐고 그 알지 못한 것에 대하여 송하인이 무과실인 경우에는 선적에서 발생한 손해에 대하여 엄격책임, 즉 무과실책임을 부담해야 된다는 해석이 위 영미 판례로부터 도출된다. 그러나 우리나라 법체계는 과실책임주의를 원칙으로 하고 있으므로 송하인이 무과실인 경우에는 선적에서 발생한 손해를 배상하지 않아도 된다는 정반대의 해석이 나오게 된다. 그러나, 송하인이 위험물이라는 사실을 인식하지 못한 것 자체가 과실이 되지 않는가 하는 지적이 있다. 따라서 송하인이 위험물을 인식하지 못한 데 대한 과실이 없다는 것은 성립되기 어려운 전제라고 본다. 여기서 영미 판결의 취지와 같이, 우리나라의 경우에도 위험화물의 선적에 대하여 송하인에게 무과실책임을 인정하거나 또는 과실책임에서의 입증책임을 지우는 것이 어떠한 실익이 있는지에 대하여 논의할 필요가 있게 된다.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit recently clarified the standard used to determine carrier and shipper liability when transporting dangerous goods under the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (“COGSA”). A shipper will not be strictly liable under COGSA for damages caused by dangerous goods if the carrier had general knowledge of the nature of the goods prior to the shipment, even if the carrier lacked specific information about the goods' risks. In Contship(2006) case and In re M/V DG Harmony(2008) case, the shipper's liability will be determined based on a negligence standard. Where the carrier alleges that the shipper negligently failed to warn it about the characteristics of the shipment, the carrier must show that the shipper: (1) had a duty to warn, because the goods presented dangers which the carrier could not reasonably be expected to know; (2) failed to provide the adequate warning, and (3) any failure to warn would not have impacted the carrier's stowage plan. This result demonstrates a shift away from strict liability based on carrier's knowledge and a lack of the causational element of the failure to warn theory. In the Korean Commercial Code, a shipper will not be held strictly liable for damages caused by dangerous goods, when the carrier is generally aware of the nature of goods and nevertheless exposes the goods to potentially hazardous conditions. The shipper's liability will be judged on a negligence standard. The carrier will need to demonstrate that the shipper failed to warn the carrier of the specific risk and acted negligently with respect to the goods. Therefore, if a carrier has general knowledge of the nature of dangerous goods, it must take extra measures to protect the goods. If a shipper has knowledge of goods' dangerous nature, it must warn the carrier specific risks associated therewith.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit recently clarified the standard used to determine carrier and shipper liability when transporting dangerous goods under the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (“COGSA”). A shipper will not be strictly liable under COGSA for damages caused by dangerous goods if the carrier had general knowledge of the nature of the goods prior to the shipment, even if the carrier lacked specific information about the goods' risks. In Contship(2006) case and In re M/V DG Harmony(2008) case, the shipper's liability will be determined based on a negligence standard. Where the carrier alleges that the shipper negligently failed to warn it about the characteristics of the shipment, the carrier must show that the shipper: (1) had a duty to warn, because the goods presented dangers which the carrier could not reasonably be expected to know; (2) failed to provide the adequate warning, and (3) any failure to warn would not have impacted the carrier's stowage plan. This result demonstrates a shift away from strict liability based on carrier's knowledge and a lack of the causational element of the failure to warn theory. In the Korean Commercial Code, a shipper will not be held strictly liable for damages caused by dangerous goods, when the carrier is generally aware of the nature of goods and nevertheless exposes the goods to potentially hazardous conditions. The shipper's liability will be judged on a negligence standard. The carrier will need to demonstrate that the shipper failed to warn the carrier of the specific risk and acted negligently with respect to the goods. Therefore, if a carrier has general knowledge of the nature of dangerous goods, it must take extra measures to protect the goods. If a shipper has knowledge of goods' dangerous nature, it must warn the carrier specific risks associated therewith.

, , , , , , , ,

shipper, carrier, dangerous goods, a duty to warn, strict liability, negligence standard, causational element, shipment, stowage