Product Liability Lawyer
Product Liability Lawyer | What Injured Consumers Need to Know Before Filing a Claim
Product liability lets a person injured by a defective product claim compensation directly from the manufacturer, importer, or in some cases the seller, even without a direct contract between them (제조물책임법 제3조). Unlike an ordinary negligence claim, the victim generally does not have to prove exactly how the manufacturing process went wrong — the focus shifts to whether the product was defective and whether that defect caused the harm. This area covers manufacturing defects, design defects, and failure-to-warn defects, and it matters because many victims give up simply because they assume they cannot access internal manufacturing records that only the company holds.
Product Liability | What Counts as a 'Defect' Under the Product Liability Act
The Product Liability Act (제조물책임법) recognizes three distinct types of defect. Which type applies changes what evidence matters and who else might be responsible.
This is the most common type: a single unit or batch came out different from how it was designed or intended, for example a food product contaminated during production or an appliance with a wiring fault that other identical units don't have. Courts generally accept that a product is defective if it failed to perform as safely as a reasonably expected level, even without pinpointing the exact manufacturing error (제조물책임법 제2조 제2호 가목).
Here the entire product line is considered unsafe by design, not just one unit. The key question is whether an alternative design could have reduced or avoided the risk without unreasonably impairing the product's usefulness or increasing its cost (제조물책임법 제2조 제2호 나목). This type often requires comparing the product against industry alternatives or later, safer versions.
Even a product that is otherwise safely designed and manufactured can be defective if the manufacturer did not provide warnings or instructions that could have reduced or avoided the danger, considering when the manufacturer could reasonably have provided them (제조물책임법 제2조 제2호 다목). This is common in medication side-effect cases and household chemical injuries.
A manufacturer may avoid liability by showing that the defect could not have been discovered given the scientific and technical knowledge available at the time the product was supplied, or that the defect resulted from following mandatory standards set by law (제조물책임법 제4조 제1항). These defenses are evaluated strictly and the manufacturer bears the burden of proving them.
When the Manufacturer Cannot Rely on These Defenses
Even if a manufacturer would otherwise qualify for the development risk defense, that defense is unavailable if the manufacturer knew about the danger after supplying the product and failed to take reasonable measures such as a recall or warning (제조물책임법 제4조 제2항). This is why documenting when the manufacturer became aware of a problem — through recall notices, consumer complaints, or regulatory actions — can be decisive.
Product Liability | How the Presumption of Defect Helps Victims Who Can't Access Internal Records
One of the biggest practical obstacles in these cases used to be that only the manufacturer had access to the technical data showing what went wrong. A 2017 amendment to the Act addressed this directly.
The statutory presumption of defect and causation
If the victim shows that the injury occurred while the product was being used normally, in a way that would not ordinarily occur without a defect, and that the injury was not caused by some other reason outside the manufacturer's control, the law presumes the product was defective and that the defect caused the damage (제조물책임법 제3조의2). This does not eliminate the victim's burden entirely, but it removes the need to explain the precise engineering failure inside the product.
What the manufacturer can do to rebut the presumption
The manufacturer can defeat the presumption by showing the product was not defective at the time it left their control, or that the accident happened for a reason unrelated to the product itself, such as user misuse. This is why early evidence collection — photos of the product immediately after the incident, medical records, and preserving the physical item itself — matters more than almost anything else in these cases.
Who can be held liable besides the manufacturer
Liability can also reach an importer who brought the product into Korea, or in limited cases a supplier or seller who fails to identify the actual manufacturer within a reasonable time after the victim requests that information (제조물책임법 제3조 제2항). This matters when the original manufacturer is a foreign company that is difficult to sue directly.
Product Liability | What Damages Can Be Claimed and How They Are Calculated
Compensation in a product liability case typically covers several distinct categories, each requiring different evidence.
Medical expenses and lost income
Past and future medical costs, including expected future treatment or surgery tied to the injury, can be claimed along with lost wages during recovery and, in serious cases, reduced future earning capacity. Expert medical opinions and vocational assessments are often needed to project long-term losses.
Pain and suffering (solatium)
Compensation for physical and emotional suffering is assessed based on the severity of the injury, permanency of any disability, and the victim's individual circumstances. Courts have discretion here, so documenting the actual day-to-day impact on the victim's life strengthens this part of the claim.
Punitive-style aggravated damages for gross negligence
If the manufacturer knew a product could seriously harm a person's life or body and failed to take reasonable measures despite that knowledge, courts can award damages up to three times the actual damages suffered (제조물책임법 제3조 제2항). This provision is aimed specifically at cases involving concealment, cover-ups, or ignored internal warnings.
Product Liability | Product Categories Where Claims Commonly Arise
While the legal framework is the same, the practical evidence differs significantly depending on what kind of product caused the harm.
Household appliances and electronics
Battery fires, overheating chargers, and malfunctioning heating elements are common. Preserving the burned or malfunctioning unit itself, rather than discarding it after the incident, is often the single most important piece of evidence.
Pharmaceuticals and medical devices
These cases often turn on whether the manufacturer adequately warned of a known side effect, and whether the injury falls within a recognized adverse reaction pattern. Prescribing records, package inserts, and any post-market safety data are central.
Food and consumer goods contamination
Foreign objects, spoilage, or contamination cases usually rely on manufacturing defect theory. Keeping the product packaging, lot number, and purchase receipt helps establish exactly which batch was involved.
Product Liability | From Initial Consultation to Resolution
Before anything else, the physical product, packaging, receipts, medical records, and photos or video of the incident should be secured. A lawyer reviews whether the facts fit the statutory presumption of defect.
If needed, a formal request is sent to identify the manufacturer or importer, and a technical or medical expert may be consulted to assess whether the injury pattern is consistent with a defect claim.
Depending on the case, a demand letter to the manufacturer, a complaint to the Korea Consumer Agency (한국소비자원), or direct litigation may be the appropriate first step.
Many manufacturers prefer to settle rather than litigate defect claims publicly, especially where a recall risk exists. Settlement talks or consumer dispute mediation can resolve the claim without a full trial.
If settlement fails, a civil suit is filed. The case centers on establishing normal use, the nature of the injury, and ruling out alternative causes so the statutory presumption of defect applies.
Once damages are awarded or a settlement is reached, the case moves to payment or, if necessary, enforcement proceedings against the manufacturer's assets.
Product Liability | How Fees Are Typically Structured
Reviewing the product, medical records, and incident circumstances to assess whether a viable defect claim exists is usually billed as a separate initial assessment, since it may require an outside technical opinion.
A base retainer is generally set based on the complexity of the case, including whether expert testimony, laboratory testing of the product, or overseas manufacturer identification will be needed.
Many product liability cases include a success fee calculated as a percentage of the compensation actually recovered, whether by settlement or judgment, in addition to the base retainer.
Technical inspection of the defective product, forensic engineering opinions, or medical expert reports are often necessary and are billed separately as actual costs incurred, since they are paid to third parties rather than the firm.
Filing fees, service of process costs, and other statutory litigation expenses are calculated based on the amount claimed and are separate from attorney fees.
※ Costs vary depending on case complexity and specific circumstances; exact fees will be provided during consultation. No specific outcome is guaranteed.
Product Liability | Self-Check Before You Reach Out
1️⃣ Did This Happen During Normal Use?
- Were you using the product as intended, or in a way most people would reasonably use it?
- Did the injury happen without any unusual modification or third-party tampering to the product?
- Can you rule out that the accident was caused by something other than the product itself?
2️⃣ Have You Preserved the Evidence?
- Do you still have the physical product, or at least clear photos of it right after the incident?
- Do you have the original packaging, receipt, or lot/serial number?
- Have you kept medical records, diagnosis reports, and any treatment bills related to the injury?
3️⃣ Do You Know Who to Pursue?
- Can you identify the manufacturer's name and address from the packaging or manual?
- If it's an imported product, do you know who imported or distributed it in Korea?
- Has the seller refused or failed to tell you who the actual manufacturer is?
4️⃣ Is There a Broader Safety Pattern?
- Have you seen other consumer complaints, news reports, or a recall notice about the same product?
- Did the manufacturer continue selling the product after becoming aware of similar incidents?
- Do you have any record of contacting the manufacturer or customer service about the defect?
