미국 불법행위법상 동산 제공자의 책임

Liability of Persons Supplying Chattels for the Use of Others in American Tort Law- focusing on Negligence Provisions in the Restatement of Torts -

Although the Restatements of Torts may not be American positive law, the Restatement is a good guide to understand American Tort law. In this regard, this author has examined chapter 14, liability of persons supplying chattels for the use of others, in the Restatements of (Second) Torts in this article. This Restatement chapter has 7 topics: rules applicable to all suppliers; persons supplying chattels to be used for their business purposes; manufacturers of chattels; sellers of chattels manufactured by third persons; strict liability; independent contractors; donors, lenders, and lessors of chattels. While having studied the sections 388 through 408 of the Restatement of (Second) Torts, this author has found its relation with general principles of chapter 12 in the Restatement of Torts and its independent functions, in which American Tort Law has evolved, with American Contact Law. In the meantime, this author may be able to look at a big picture of negligence in American Tort Law. This author has realized that the rules of liability of persons supplying chattels for the use of others also have provided basis rules of modern product strict liability, such as sections 402A and 402B. In addition, while liability rules of chattels suppliers have worked to cure harms and injuries occurred by torts in this area, its core provision is the section 388. Thus other sections (389 through 408) have been slight variation rules from the section 388. The rules and discussions in sections 388 through 408 in the Restatement of (Second) Torts may be similar to ‘warranty liability of sale contract’ in the Korean Civil Code, ‘positive contract violation,’ which Korean courts have mentioned, and ‘Korean Product Liability Act.’ The American Tort rules of chattels suppliers’ liability also have different aspects comparing to such Korean warranty liability of sale contract, positive contract violation and current Korean Product Liability Act. In this regard, this author explains these similarities and differences between both countries’ rules. Finally this author attempts to suggest what the sections 388 through 408 of the Restatement of (Second) Torts may work for Korean Tort Law.