earticle

영어

In regard to relatedness between work and diseases, there are two theories. One requires adequate causation between the two and the other does work relatedness rather than its adequate causation. From this point of view it may be more proper to say that it is sufficient only with reasonable relations. Employers have the duty of protection against health hazards in work places, and it is needless to say that industrial accident insurance is more effective than tort. In case that the causes of occupational diseases are one which the employee has had originally and the other which has aroused by health hazards of his work environment, Korean Supreme Court judges occupational diseases by relatively loose standards, and it thinks employees have the duty of proof. In spite of the judgements of the Supreme Court. I think employers should have the same kind of duty to prove evidences against the occurrence of the diseases during the employees' work period. Especially the number of diseases that occurred in certain hours and time after having injuries or accidents but the causes of the occurrence or deterioration of the diseases are unknown has increased. Practically because it is very difficult to assume the causation of the diseases and to measure carcinogens, the transfer of proof responsibility is needed. It is because it is difficult to accept occupational diseases only with the adequate causation that carcinogens can be the only reason of occupational cancer. So we should acknowledge work related cancers caused by carcinogens.