미국 共同不法行爲責任(多數當事者責任)의 시사점 (The Implications of Joint and Several Liability for Korean Tort Law)

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 한국재산법학회
· 수록지 정보 : 재산법연구 / 31권 / 4호 / 85 ~ 106페이지
· 저자명 : 가정준

초록

본 논문은 ‘공동불법행위책임’이 불법행위책임법에서 어떠한 역할을 하며 실제로 잠재적 가해자에게 어떠한 영향을 미치는 지에 대해 법경제학적 측면에서 기술하고, 미국 불법행위법에서 ‘공동불법행위책임’의 역사적 배경 및 현재의 위치에 대해 검토하고자 하였다. 그리고 오늘날 미국의 ‘不眞正共同責任’과 민법상 ‘부진정연대책임’에 대해 서술하였다. 마지막으로 이러한 내용을 종합한 결론을 맺었다. 궁극적으로 ‘부진정공동책임’에 관련한 쟁점은 다수의 불법행위 가해자들이 피해자 손해에 대해 그 책임을 어떻게 부담하느냐 이다. 피해자의 과실 부분이 있다면 이를 제외한 나머지를 가해자들이 모두 연대하여 ‘공동책임(joint liability)’을 부담하느냐, 연대를 인정하지 않고 ‘개별책임(several liability)’을 부담하느냐, 아니면 그 절충안으로 ‘공동책임(joint liability)’을 지는 경우와 ‘개별책임(several liability)’을 지는 경우를 분별하느냐이다. 특히 ‘다수당사자책임’ 중 ‘부진정공동책임’은 가해자와 피해자의 과실을 전제로 자신의 과실 부분과 다른 당사자의 과실 부분을 어떻게 책임을 부담하느냐이다. ‘공동책임’이라는 요건에 충족되면 불법행위 가해자의 과실 부분의 크기에 관계 없이 전체 가해자의 책임을 부담함으로써 ‘공동책임’은 피해자를 좀 더 확실히 구제받을 수 있는 역할을 한다. ‘공동책임’은 피해자의 손해를 전보시켜야 한다는 원칙에 충실하기 위해서 가해자들이 경우에 따라서는 자신들의 행위 이상의 책임을 부담시키게 한다. 현재 미국의 ‘공동불법행위책임’이 가지고 있는 다양한 모습으로 다수의 가해자에게 책임을 분배하고 있는데 이에 대한 연구는 우리 법제에 다양한 잠재적 法源을 제공할 기회라고 생각한다.

영어초록

It is not easy to explain joint and several liability in American torts in the sense of Korean tort law. The joint and several liability includes two opposite liability; joint liability and several liability. Korean Civil Code 760 may be compared with joint liability. Korean Civil Code 760 section (1) and (3) provides what the act of several tortfeasors in concert is and how they are liable for that. Restatement (Third) of Torts describes that several tortfeasors act in concert if (i) they have committed tortious conduct under a common design, (ii) they knows that the other's conduct constitutes a breach of duty and gives substantial assistance or encouragement to the other, or (iii) one gives substantial assistance to the other in accomplishing a tortious result and his own conduct, separately considered, constitutes a breach of duty to the third person. They are jointly liable for what they or one of them has committed.








The City appeals from a judgment determining the City to be liable for the 1% causal negligence of a school crossing guard. The parents of a six-year-old boy who was killed in a car accident at an intersection supervised by a City crossing guard. They commenced a wrongful death action against the City instead of an uninsured driver who failed to apply the brakes. The parties stipulated that the driver was causally negligent as a matter of law. The jury found the City 1% causally negligent. It means that the City is jointly and severally liable for all damages to the victim although its negligence is 1%. The appeal was denied.








The efforts for Tort Reform occurred to reduce tort litigation or damages in the U.S. Its try was not successful at the Federal level because Congress overrode a veto by President Clinton in 1995 but a quite successful at the State level. In particular, the common law rule of joint and several liability was replaced with different rules under the most legislative success. Of the forty-six states that had a joint and several liability rule, thirty-three states have abolished or limited the rule.








For examples, some states have purely kept joint and several liability for independent tortfeasors while a few states have abolished joint and several liability for independent tortfeasors but establishes several liability for them. A certain number of states have created hybrid liability based on threshold percentage of comparative responsibility. Only tortfeasors who are assigned a certain percentage of comparative responsibility determined by the statute are jointly and severally liable for the indivisible harm.








In Korea, it is likely that joint liability by multiple tortfeasors has easily been recognized to protect the injured. In my opinion, this trend is considered positive because Korea is necessary for ‘Tort Reform’ to increase the scope of tort liability and the amount of damages. It is necessary to easily to recognize the joint liability for plaintiffs. In the tortious context of Korea, it makes more likely to cure the injustice among tortfeasors, to internalize externalities. That is why supreme court has made that decisions. However, supreme court needs to develop good reasonings for these decisions. It is the time to compare other legal system and learn how to deal with multiple independent tortfeasors for individual harm although the U.S. has tried to decrease the scope of the joint liability.

참고자료

· 없음