Korea’s legal system is based on evidence, not perceived social costs. There is no way we could adopt punitive
Jump to full article: Joong Ang Ilbo (kr), 2009-09-10
Author: Kim Sung-soo
Intro: In Korea, the court ruled in 2007 that cigarettes were faulty products, and that even if cigarettes contain nicotine, which might be addictive, the addictiveness is not so great that it makes quitting with one’s free will impossible. The court decided that the correlation between smoking and lung cancer was not enough to confirm an independent causal relationship between the two.
The astronomical compensation in the U.S. case can largely be credited to the unique judicial system and culture of the United States.
Unlike Korea, courts in the United States award punitive damages, which punish the wrongdoers by ordering them to provide compensation in excess of the actual damage.
In calculating punitive damages in these cases, the court takes into account not only the damage caused to the plaintiff but also the potential risk that all smokers may develop cancer and the health hazards to non-smokers.
Therefore, it is possible that this method of calculation goes against the principle of fair compensation for damages and the constitutionally defined ban on excessive punishment.
However, we should not overlook the fact that there had been considerable friction between regional courts and the Supreme Court of the United States until the Oregon State Supreme Court decided to award compensation for punitive damages. . . .
In contrast, in Korea, Germany, France and Japan trials are decided by professional judges, and an evidence-based approach is valued above all.
It would be difficult for countries with this kind of “continental” legal system to embrace punitive damages, born in the unique social and cultural climate of the United States.
More fundamentally, we do not have a national consensus to introduce the concept of punitive damages.
Jump to full article » |