원문정보
Cause in torts responsibility - focused on PETL
초록
영어
It might be hard to distinguish the cause-in-fact and proximate cause, however, in our Civil Code, there is separate provision for the establishment of liability and the scope of the liability so it is fair to make such distinction. In determining the cause-in-fact, but-for test should be applied in order to withdraw the fast and clear conclusion. However, the proximate cause should not be considered as an issue related to merely causation because it is not possibile to limit the scope of liability only by the causation.
Since the tort law's purpose, to distribute the liability in the fair way can be achieved when we determine the proximate cause, therefore, we should consider many factors in stead of choosing one doctrine. In this aspect, Principle of European Tort Law provides interesting standards on the causation theory.
목차
Ⅱ. 유럽불법행위법 원칙에서 인과관계의 규율
1. 개관
2. 사실적 인과관계
3. 배상책임의 귀속과 범위
Ⅲ. 우리나라의 인과관계 관련 법규 및 이론
1. 기본적 체계
2. 책임성립의 인과관계와 배상범위의 인과관계의 구분 여부
3. 책임성립의 인과관계의 개념
4. 인과관계의 개념이나 입증도에 유연성을 부여하는 견해들
5. 책임범위의 제한 - 민법 제313조의 해석론
III. 결어 - 유럽불법행위법 원칙이 우리 법제에 주는 시사점
[참고문헌]