수의사의 애완동물 수의료과오행위에 대한 손해배상책임 (Veterinary Malpractice Liability in the Care of Pet-Animal)

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 안암법학회
· 수록지 정보 : 안암법학 / 35호 / 215 ~ 252페이지
· 저자명 : 김민동

초록

What is the actual worth of a particular pet animal to a particular individual? Should the legal system recognize or respond to these valuations? And if so, how?It has recently been shown that pet-animal is treated like pet owner' family with affection. People really love their pets, invest sizable emotional and financial sums in caring for them, and want to do everything they can to reduce the chance that such beloved companions will endure unnecessary harm. Although our Code of Civil Law does not have like German Code of Civil Law §90(a), we don't have to treat legally pet animal as things classified as mere property. Japanese courts actually are moving closer to consensus on the pet animal valuation.
It may increase claim for the malpractice liability of veterinarians in our country. When matters veterinarian negligece, courts shoud consider various factors on a case-by-case basis, for example, different kind, purpose, relations of animal and so on. In the veterinary malpractice litigation, courts have to decide like human doctor's malpratice. And courts are necessary to consider the emotional impact of pet loss. It's not justifiable still limit pet owners to recovering only market value damages for the negligent or intentional deaths of their pet animals. If civil courts allows not more than market value damages in cases of veterinary malfeasance, human victims of veterinary negligence are not fully compensated for the emotional and financial investments made in their pet animals. It's the problem of equity. And the inability to recover more than nominal damages financially precludes owners actually harmed by veterinary malpractice from even seeking civil redress in the courts. This preclusion in turn prevents any meaningful judicial oversight to ensure that veterinarians are adequately conforming to the level of care expected by pet owners and the rest of our society. It's the problem of fairness. Accordingly, courts positively must allow consolation money about pet owner's emotional damage.

영어초록

What is the actual worth of a particular pet animal to a particular individual? Should the legal system recognize or respond to these valuations? And if so, how?It has recently been shown that pet-animal is treated like pet owner' family with affection. People really love their pets, invest sizable emotional and financial sums in caring for them, and want to do everything they can to reduce the chance that such beloved companions will endure unnecessary harm. Although our Code of Civil Law does not have like German Code of Civil Law §90(a), we don't have to treat legally pet animal as things classified as mere property. Japanese courts actually are moving closer to consensus on the pet animal valuation.
It may increase claim for the malpractice liability of veterinarians in our country. When matters veterinarian negligece, courts shoud consider various factors on a case-by-case basis, for example, different kind, purpose, relations of animal and so on. In the veterinary malpractice litigation, courts have to decide like human doctor's malpratice. And courts are necessary to consider the emotional impact of pet loss. It's not justifiable still limit pet owners to recovering only market value damages for the negligent or intentional deaths of their pet animals. If civil courts allows not more than market value damages in cases of veterinary malfeasance, human victims of veterinary negligence are not fully compensated for the emotional and financial investments made in their pet animals. It's the problem of equity. And the inability to recover more than nominal damages financially precludes owners actually harmed by veterinary malpractice from even seeking civil redress in the courts. This preclusion in turn prevents any meaningful judicial oversight to ensure that veterinarians are adequately conforming to the level of care expected by pet owners and the rest of our society. It's the problem of fairness. Accordingly, courts positively must allow consolation money about pet owner's emotional damage.

참고자료

· 없음