Lee Sun Goo
Gachon University School of Medicine, Seongnam, Korea.
J Prev Med Public Health. 2016 Mar;49(2):80-96. doi: 10.3961/jpmph.16.002. Epub 2016 Mar 31.
Recently, a series of lawsuits were filed in Korea claiming tort liability against tobacco companies. The Supreme Court has already issued decisions in some cases, while others are still pending. The primary issue in these cases is whether the epidemiological evidence submitted by the plaintiffs clearly proves the causal relationship between smoking and disease as required by civil law. Proving causation is difficult in tobacco lawsuits because factors other than smoking are involved in the development of a disease, and also because of the lapse of time between smoking and the manifestation of the disease. The Supreme Court (Supreme Court Decision, 2011Da22092, April 10, 2014) has imposed some limitations on using epidemiological evidence to prove causation in tobacco lawsuits filed by smokers and their family members, but these limitations should be reconsidered. First, the Court stated that a disease can be categorized as specific or non-specific, and for each disease type, causation can be proven by different types of evidence. However, the concept of specific diseases is not compatible with multifactor theory, which is generally accepted in the field of public health. Second, when the epidemiological association between the disease and the risk factor is proven to be significant, imposing additional burdens of proof on the plaintiff may considerably limit the plaintiff's right to recovery, but the Court required the plaintiffs to provide additional information such as health condition and lifestyle. Third, the Supreme Court is not giving greater weight to the evidential value of epidemiological study results because the Court focuses on the fact that these studies were group-level, not individual-level. However, group-level studies could still offer valuable information about individual members of the group, e.g., probability of causation.
最近，韩国提起了一系列诉讼，要求烟草公司承担侵权责任。最高法院已经对一些案件做出了判决，而其他一些案件仍在审理中。这些案件的主要问题是，原告提交的流行病学证据是否如民法要求的那样，清楚地证明了吸烟与疾病之间的因果关系。在烟草诉讼中证明因果关系很困难，因为疾病的发展涉及吸烟以外的因素，还因为吸烟与疾病显现之间存在时间间隔。最高法院（最高法院判决，2011Da22092，2014年4月10日）对吸烟者及其家庭成员提起的烟草诉讼中使用流行病学证据证明因果关系施加了一些限制，但这些限制应该重新考虑。首先，法院表示，疾病可分为特定疾病或非特定疾病，对于每种疾病类型，因果关系可通过不同类型的证据来证明。然而，特定疾病的概念与公共卫生领域普遍接受的多因素理论不相容。其次，当疾病与风险因素之间的流行病学关联被证明具有显著性时，给原告施加额外的举证责任可能会大大限制原告的获赔权，但法院要求原告提供额外信息，如健康状况和生活方式。第三，最高法院没有更重视流行病学研究结果的证据价值，因为法院关注的事实是这些研究是群体层面的，而非个体层面的。然而，群体层面的研究仍然可以提供有关该群体个体成员的有价值信息，例如因果关系的概率。
